r/baseball • u/_HGCenty Seattle Mariners • 14h ago

Players Only Dodgers' Alex Call blasts controversial Sydney Sweeney ad

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.

2.6k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

438

u/Three_Froggy_Problem Chicago Cubs 14h ago

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.

44

u/JellyBearJam Los Angeles Dodgers 14h ago

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.

16

u/Three_Froggy_Problem Chicago Cubs 14h ago

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.

-1

u/JellyBearJam Los Angeles Dodgers 13h ago

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).

-4

u/Three_Froggy_Problem Chicago Cubs 13h ago

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.

1

u/wokenupbybacon New York Yankees 8h ago

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.

-1

u/JellyBearJam Los Angeles Dodgers 13h ago

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.