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/Traditional_Half842]

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.