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/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/wegandi → u/ElephantCares]

Man remember when it was empowering to be overtly sexual and nude like Madonna. Now I guess its the progressive thing to cover up except when youre going to the gym, I guess. Come on. We all know its about Sydney Sweeney's politics getting a crawl with the feminist crowd. Its like that red button pressing meme.

Horseshoe theory from puritan to progressive haha.

[u/wokenupbybacon → u/wegandi]

You've missed the point entirely if you think this makes any sense in response to that comment lol

[u/wegandi → u/wokenupbybacon]

How so? Madonna routinely used sexualized content in her shows and performances. That was empowering for women. Now, being sexual as a woman is frowned upon. We've gone from being sexual is liberating and empowerment to being offensive to women. Second, third wave, feminism just makes no sense any more. Also, please, we all know why people hate on Sydney and give a pass to other women.

I guess Madonna fought for women to mock other women for being sexual in public facing avenues. 😂

[u/wokenupbybacon → u/wegandi]

You seem to have missed that no one's actually criticizing Sydney Sweeney in this thread. She gets criticized in general, sure, but for all the people who have a problem with this ad, they don't seem to be blaming Sweeney for making it; they're criticizing the marketers for this approach in an ad about gambling. If she wants to continue making crazy money flaunting her breasts everywhere that'll pay her an acceptable rate to do it, all the power to her.

Additionally, there is a difference between embracing women's sexuality and catering to the male gaze. There's a clear through line in the ad's messaging; it's not a coincidental, unrelated thing that she keeps saying "just sports". What they're trying to communicate is that they understand what the audience (men) actually want in a gambling service, and they're proving they know what men want by delivering their message with a busty, fit, naked woman in various suggestive poses.

That's not empowering women to embrace their sexuality, it's a commodification of their bodies for men's consumption. There's nothing for women to aspire to here, and it's a devalued way of presenting women to men. It's also simultaneously degrading of men's intelligence.

Livvy Dunne's Fanatics campaign that featured her naked in a bubble bath wasn't without its faults, but it was significantly less problematic in that the messaging and visuals were no so closely linked. The problem is not purely that a woman is being sexy in an ad, it's what they're using that woman to say.

[u/ElephantCares → u/wokenupbybacon]

100%. Oh, I blame her. Big time. I didn't bother here because I just didn't want to deal with the ignorant Neanderthals who are defending this ad.

In my 20's and 30's I was a person who could have been considered for an ad like this. Not in a million years or for any amount of money would I have taken it.

Later on, when I was a video producer, I would have given up my job rather than produce, direct, shoot or edit such a degrading ad to women. I don't even know who this person is, but I have absolutely no respect for her and clearly she has no respect for herself or women in general.

All these people are locked on the gambling and the 'nudity', without conceptualizing the degrading sexualization of women.

So, whether they are defending the ad, or think it shouldn't be show to kids, they are not looking at the deeper concept of how this ad affects both boys and girls.

For boys it's a clear message that women are useful for only one thing. That they are to be oogled and sexualized. For little girls, it gives them, in essence, the same message, that they are not capable of using their brains to move forward in life. If they want to be admired, it's only gratuitous sexualization that does that for them. And, I love your statement of how it degrades men's intelligence, and I will add that no one, but no one, even considers how offensive it is to female baseball fans.

Sidney, whatever her name is should be hanging her head in shame for prostituting herself and, in essence, throwing other women under the bus in the process. So, yeah, am I going to get all that shit from the ignorant Neanderthals? I'm sure, yes. But then again, at least I know there is at least one other person who is capable of conceptualizing the deeper ramification of this kind of ad and the women who are willing to prostitute themselves to do it.

[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/Microwave1213 → u/cman1098]

  You are saying nudity is worse to have in ads than gambling

Yes. Good job. 

[u/cman1098 → u/Microwave1213]

And it's not even nudity but now its your reading comprehension that needs work. Nudity isn't allowed. She is covered.

[u/Microwave1213 → u/cman1098]

So your entire argument is based on semantics..? Would it make you feel better if I said ‘hyper sexualization of the body’ instead of nudity? 

[u/cman1098 → u/Microwave1213]

Why is she dressed with sports equipment like that daddy?

"It's funny"

"Why isn't she covered more daddy?" "Some people like it."

'i still don't understand daddy" "you will when your are older"

Like grow up. Gambling destroys lives. "Nudity" is something you and I do every day. I know having to parent your child is a nightmare. Sexual acts creates families, gambling destroys families.

[u/LordElrondHubbard1 → u/Microwave1213]

Thats an incredibly stupid take. Explain to me then why alot of European countries can have straight up fill frontal nudity on broadcast tv and they dont seem to have the issues youre claiming come from showing stuff like that on TV. Let's be honest you only give a fuck because its Sydney Sweeney.

[u/Microwave1213 → u/LordElrondHubbard1]

I could not possibly care less about Sydney Sweeney. I don’t know anything about her or any of the controversies that she’s apparently a part of. 

I do, however, know with absolute certainty that hyper sexualized ads like that lead to more porn addictions than regular gambling ads lead to gambling addictions. 

[u/LordElrondHubbard1 → u/Microwave1213]

Again why does Europe seem to not have an issue with this when alot of European countries actually allow full frontal nudity on TV? Could it be parents there arent as lazy and inept as Americans, so they actually talk to their kids about this shit instead of burying their head in the sand an pretending it doesnt exist?

[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/mrdannyg21 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Absolutely! People can be activists for one cause or another of their choosing, no requirement to be against everything ‘bad’ (opinions on ‘bad’ may vary) and it doesn’t discredit one to ignore another.

My point was that it’s just interesting how wide-ranging his complaints are, but that he leaves one off that is so much more wide-ranging and unavoidable. Still doesn’t discredit his complaints though.

[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/Shock_city → u/MakeItTrizzle]

Disagree. The sexualization of every aspect of life through the media has very tangible consequences for kids. Including it's role in helping make kids more susceptible to being sexualized through sexual abuse and sex trafficking.

You can ask many of the young (often teenaged) woman with onlyfans accounts why they pursued them and you'll be told if society is going to sexually objectify women like me at every opportunity for a profit anyways, why shouldn't I be the one to make money from it at least?

I'm not puritanical but my partner is a social worker who advocates for minors who are victims of abuse. Most of these kids form much of their outlook on what's acceptable from the media, which tells them sexualizing everything is acceptable, so they kids allow themselves to be sexualized.

[u/MakeItTrizzle → u/Shock_city]

"I'm not puritanical"

Yeah okay

[u/Shock_city → u/MakeItTrizzle]

"If you're not down with little kids watching a nearly naked Sydney Sweeney being dog walked on her hands and knees around a set you're puritanical"

Sounds like something you'd hear on epstein island

[u/MakeItTrizzle → u/Shock_city]

Lol yeah that's what I said. Keep clutching those pearls, babe.

[u/Shock_city → u/MakeItTrizzle]

That's exactly what I'm criticizing the MLB for airing and you're calling me puritanical for it, so yes, that is what you're saying.

Keep white knighting for the MLB airing super sexualized content to kids, babe. It's an awfully weird thing to defend if you ask me.

[u/MakeItTrizzle → u/Shock_city]

Well of course it's weird in your opinion, you think anything sexual is tantamount to raping children. Which is a totally normal conclusion to which to jump.

Hopefully you never have any of your own, you might slip up and smooch your wife by accident, permanently scarring them for life.

[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/Traditional_Half842 → u/Unclesam1313]

They are literally both covering their genitals with sports equipment, and plenty of them are attractive women. And ESPN shows plenty of their body issue content on their national broadcasts. I understand why a company hires Syndey Sweeney to do these ads. But I think there's some hypocrisy in getting outraged over her ads and not the ESPN The Body ads. They are incredibly similar situations (and most places outside of the US don't care about this crap).

[u/Unclesam1313 → u/Traditional_Half842]

I have not personally seen any of those ads, so can’t speak to them. Maybe I’d feel the same about them if I did. But that’s just pure whataboutism and not really pertinent. Expressing discontent about one thing doesn’t require someone to go seek out and evaluate every single other possibly similar thing and include that in the commentary, and failure to do so isn’t inherently hypocritical. But that said, two things come to mind:

First, context and presentation matters. A renaissance painting of a naked man with a fig leaf over his junk does not necessarily equal a stripper roleplaying Adam In the garden of eden, just because they are clothed the same. Likewise, the line between softcore porn and empowering/body-positive imagery may be fuzzy, but it does exist and placing things on one side or the other is definitely possible.

Second, I’m not taking some kind of puritanical view that sex in advertising is inherently gross and immoral. But I do think that many of these ads cross a line where parents are reasonable to feel uncomfortable with their children watching. And that line is clearly being crossed in the name of profits for networks, at the expense of the communal and familial viewing experience that I believe is integral to the soul of baseball- it certainly was for me growing up with my dad. I don’t mean to make any hyperbolic claims that “omg it ruins everything!”, but it does make me a bit sad. I feel mostly the same way about incessant gambling ads that are non-sexual, but it just adds another layer.

[u/Traditional_Half842 → u/Unclesam1313]

I'm not trying to say whatabout that - I'm just wondering why we get up in an outrage about an ad with some suggestive nudity, but not the barrages of gambling and drinking ads we get (and we get WAY more of them than Sydney Sweeney). The most dangerous part of the ad is the gambling it is promoting, but people here are upset about the half-naked woman. Don't you see how absurd that sounds? If you want to be upset about both, fine. But why prioritize the suggestive nudity over the problematic gambling? Let's tackle the bigger problems before the smaller ones.

[u/Unclesam1313 → u/Traditional_Half842]

Dude people have been complaining about gambling ads constantly for years, myself included. That shit needs some regulation.

I think the difference in reaction though comes from the impact and legibility to children. A polymarket ad with a bunch of celebrities hanging out in an office, or a Kalshi ad with Timothée Chalamet at the dentist are not exactly going to be legible to an 8 year old as promoting the concept of gambling, so the perceived harm is more towards adults which frames the entire conversation differently. It’s sort of the same idea as adding subtle grown-up jokes to kids television, as opposed to inserting PG-13 or R rated imagery into something that by all rights should be family friendly. It’s just a different conversation.

[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/Beautiful-Jello-37 → u/JustLoSd]

I love how you’re completely trying to downplay the fact that our government is going to livestream an execution like we’re fucking North Korea.

[u/JustLoSd → u/Beautiful-Jello-37]

Who said I’m down playing anything? I hope it works as a deterrent to other terrorist pieces of 💩 that want to murder innocent people including pregnant women. But you do you.

[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/mdlt97 → u/Hacym]

If this was being displayed on kids channels that argument would be good, but it wasn’t

The game ended at 10:40pm

[u/BossAtUCF → u/mdlt97]

10:25 Gameday has it as a 3:21 game that started at 4:04 local, 7:04 Eastern. A game played by children that started at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. This isn't some adult PPV channel.

I'm not even necessarily saying I have a problem with the ad, but it's a game that started just after kids would have gotten home from school on the west coast, and at a time when virtually all people would still be awake on the east coast.

[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/torper10 → u/Shock_city]

Any professional in this type of situation would tell you to change direction or speak to your child. Majority of what I see here is, “we shouldn’t have to parent our kids 24 hours a day”

When they are that young, that’s exactly what a parents responsibility is.

You all seem like you’re looking for utopia.

What would you do if you ran into a bear in the woods while on a hike with your 8yr old? Ask the bear to kindly leave?

[u/Shock_city → u/torper10]

What are you smoking where the over sexualization of mainstream media in society is comparable to encountering an wildlife while hiking? Lmao these situations have literally nothing in common.

You shouldn't have hover over a day time baseball broadcast to protect your kids from encountering soft core porn during commercials. The issue there is not with the parent, it's with the society that has normalized displaying highly sexualized media in environments where kids are supposed to be welcome. Bears belong in the woods. Kids belong in baseball. That's natural. Sports have nothing to with tiny naked busty actress crawling around a set on her hands and knees. Sexualizing every aspect of life to the point it's bordering on porn so you can sell stuff is a bad practice that deserves criticism. Pointing this out has nothing to do with utopia, it's just calling for common sense.

Ads existed before this kind of sexualization, where those times utopias? No.

[u/torper10 → u/Shock_city]

If your child is in danger, physically or emotionally or mentally, as a parent, you remove them or the danger from the equation. Parenting 101.

The alternative is to allow others or society to parent the children. Take a look around you and tell me how many kids under the age of 10 you see glued to their own or their parents smart devices.

Then said parent will scream “my children are overexposed to such harmful things!”

One wonders why…

[u/Shock_city → u/torper10]

That's some deep insight captain obvious.

Also, if you're child is put in danger by media during day time baseball games, you criticize the league and media putting them in danger as a means to deal with the issue going forward instead of just being a doormat for the media companies. As a consumer, you can advocate for yourself and your family instead of just throwing up your hands and accepting whatever tactics they take. Ads were not always this sexualized, they don't need to be, it can change. That's the basics of capitalism.

My kids get a hour or two of screen time a week. They should be able to use it to watch some daytime baseball without soft core porn ads. You're conflating random issues again. You don't have a good argument for why these ads need to or should play during family friendly programming so you're randomly going off about bears on hikes and screen time.

[u/torper10 → u/Shock_city]

Your ideal state is a complete police state. One filled with butterflies and sunflowers.

Guess what, that’s not reality and it never will be.

Parent your children.

Put more of your focus towards them and less towards me and the “media”

[u/Shock_city → u/torper10]

Who said anything about the police or laws? No one but you ya weirdo.

Consumer advocacy has nothing to do with a police state. I don't think you know what that term means. This is another off-topic thing you're randomly ranting about because you can't defend your last random points.

My ideal state is one where parents criticize companies who make mistakes when creating products meant for their kids instead of being doormats who just accept what they are presented with.

You can criticize media, that's part of being it's audience. You have this weird assumption whatever weird shit the MLB wants to air we either have to shut up and accept or remove ourselves from the equation. That's not how the relationship works with media and audiences. They need us so we can advocate for ourselves. Don't be such a doormat that you're defending sexualizing family programming on reddit. It's a weird hill to choose to die on.

[u/torper10 → u/Shock_city]

Backward thinking.

You are consuming the media. They choose what they want to send you. You decide if you want to consume it.

You have the ability to not consume it. The freedom to not do so.

I’d rather be able to choose to watch something raunchy than to not have that choice at all simply because a minority of you do not know how to parent your children.

The same can be said of any ad. The political ads are outrageous. I hit the mute button when they come on. Freedom of choice. Selective entertainment. I don’t sit around and bitch about it and waste my time on Reddit crying and insulting strangers.

I hope you put this much energy into your work or your children.

[u/torper10 → u/Shock_city]

Looks like I found the banned books crowd!

“We only want books on our shelves that don’t make us think.”

Take another Soma, my child.

[u/torper10 → u/[deleted]]

Well, if you see or hear something that YOU think is inappropriate for YOUR child, are you going to sit around and allow them to be exposed to it or are you going to change the environment?

That’s what parenting IS. Protecting children from what YOU believe is not ideal for them.

[u/AerieElectrical3546 → u/torper10]

while i like the sentiment, ads shouldn’t be pushing content that means we HAVE to do that.

[u/torper10 → u/AerieElectrical3546]

Also, I guarantee this loser hasn’t posted shit about the constant political ads that have actual propaganda. Those are more harmful than a beautiful woman.