Anonymous #1 7w

1. Her jeans didn’t even fit her right in the Ad. 2. An add about her having good genes is giving 1920-1930 eugenics propaganda commercial. 3. She’s just overly sexualizes herself for the male gaze even tho the commercial is for 15-25 year old women to buy AE jeans. I don’t even understand her hype. I blame AE directors/producers of that commercial.

18

Anonymous OP 7w

1. It doesn’t matter if the jeans didn’t fit her right, that just means it’s a bad ad 2. Again not saying it’s a good ad just saying I don’t think the ad is promoting eugenics, but hey any publicity is good publicity so if anything all this hate is just going to help American eagle 🤷‍♂️

3

Anonymous OP 7w

Maybe this is too naive but my experience has taught me to be slow to assume malice unless incompetence can first be ruled out. I suspect the “good genes” line was meant to be a reference to her good looks (even though I’m not sure how much that has to do with genetics vs healthcare) and wasn’t supposed to be evocative of eugenics, even if in retrospect it could come off that way.

4

Anonymous OP 7w

I thought the jeans fit her pretty well personally. If you’re uncomfortable with how sexual the ad is that is totally valid, it is definitely a lot. I tend to think that people in the U.S. are overly reactionary to such things but I wouldn’t fault anyone for being personally uncomfortable. Overall I think the ad is fine, like a 3/10 that’s a bit cringy but not a big deal.

2

Anonymous #1 7w

I just feel the fact that not only did they put someone in an ad like this, they put someone who right wing actors have lauded over because of the traits she has (blonde hair, blue eyes, big chest). If you can’t AT LEAST see how tone deaf it is to begin with, idk what to tell you

2

Anonymous #4 7w

Who are these right wing actors you are referring to and what did they say pre-add (genuine question, this may change my view on the thing). I guess I can see how the blue eyes maaaybe made it worse, but isn’t she not a natural blond? Certainly she doesn’t look like one in the add to me but maybe I’m missing the point. Also I don’t get the big chest thing, how does that tie in??

3

Anonymous #2 7w

People who wrote articles like this and used Sweeney’s physical features in their culture war after her SNL appearance are the right wing actors. Here’s a contrasting article by The Guardian if you’d be so inclined https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/sydney-sweeney-snl-republican-misogyny

1

Anonymous #4 7w

Its a jeans commercial fym they obviously not talking about jeans 😭

-1

Anonymous #1 7w

I’m not gonna argue with someone who can’t distinguish homophones, so here’s a litmus test. Can you tell me what’s wrong with this post?

-1

Anonymous #4 7w

14 words and a capitalised HH is different than a commercial talking about someone who has big naturals, you dumb fucking sped

1

Anonymous #2 7w

They’re talking about her big naturals you guys are all actually mentally handicapped

0

Anonymous #4 7w

I mean it’s about manifest destiny and western expansion, are you saying this is related to the Sydney sweeny ad? 😭

2

Anonymous #1 7w

ITS ON A POST TALKING ABOUT THE SYDNEY SWEENEY AD DUMBASS

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Where does that post talk about Sydney Sweeney? Also I’m on ur side bro why u hating 😭

1

Anonymous #1 7w

#4 is trying to conflate the Sydney Sweeney ad with the 14 words manifest destiny thing

3

Anonymous #1 7w

Just seeing if you can find dog whistles, and even with #5 saying it before you, you still couldn’t

-2

Anonymous #6 7w

AKA it’s her big naturals like I said

1