Sydney Sweeney / American Eagle Controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody actually thinks that mannish thing is more appealing than a curvy blonde hair blue doe eyed big boobed coquet.

I don’t find Rachel Zigler incredibly attractive but neither is Sydney Sweeney. She’s incredibly sexy and hot. Her face is not blue for eyed. If she weren’t blonde and didn’t have those two other assets (which are impressive) she wouldn’t be nearly as popular as she is.

+1 people agree with you. They always talk about her two assets, no one ever mentions her face.

Who cares about her face when she looks like that?

That’s not a body. It’s a resort.

[Anonymous]

If Sydney Sweeney’s genes are considered offensive & Nazi, I hope the progressives never look into Christian McCaffrey’s family tree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Sydney Sweeney’s genes are considered offensive & Nazi, I hope the progressives never look into Christian McCaffrey’s family tree.

It's the ad. I find your dumb genes also offensive, but not Nazi -- the Nazis killed people with low IQs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody actually thinks that mannish thing is more appealing than a curvy blonde hair blue doe eyed big boobed coquet.

I don’t find Rachel Zigler incredibly attractive but neither is Sydney Sweeney. She’s incredibly sexy and hot. Her face is not blue for eyed. If she weren’t blonde and didn’t have those two other assets (which are impressive) she wouldn’t be nearly as popular as she is.

Stage actors don’t have to be as “hot” as television and movie actors. Also Rachel has never been sold as supposedly hot, I don’t know why people are comparing the two out of nowhere. Her talent is being good at musical theater, nobody pays her to do anything else. They really aren’t comparable people.

Rachel is a movie actress- she has played the lead female character in several movies.

Yes but most of her roles require her to sing and or dance, that is what she gets paid for, she doesn’t get paid to be hot. I want to see Rachel vocal frying on a Jeans ad as much as I want to hear Sydney Sweeney attempt to sing lead on West Side Story.

Irony is dead. How dare you criticize Sydney Sweeney’s genes/jeans ad! Let’s all pile on Rachel Ziegler for daring to play Snow White.

The witch was whiter than her.

Hah! You can stop beating the dead horse. Irony is really, truly dead now. No need to continue.

Just stating facts. That’s why the movie flopped, along with her career. It was poor woke casting. And she’s not pretty and the storyline was she’s the most beautiful in all of the land. That’s more subjective though, but she’s definitely not white as snow. Feel bad that role will haunt her for life. Sydney will always have great jeans.

LOL I guess that's the irony part? People who flaunt it with that kind of mean attitide are exactly they type people love, just love, watching get old.

How’s that irony? She will always have great Jeans She did a great ad & will be remembered for it like Cindy Crawford is remembered for the Pepsi ad. How well she ages is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Halle Berry has had a long and successful career in Hollywood. If she was praised as "having great genes" I would be more likely to agree, compared to a rather mediocre young actress who hasn't yet proven herself as a success in her field.

This is such a load of BS.

If there was a gorgeous image of Halle Berry looking like... well, Halle Berry... with a tagline 'She has great genes', then most people certainly wouldn't take that as a reference to her proven, decades-long success as a talented thespian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

That's a great point. I think the ad would've been much better with a bunch of different women - maybe all 'model' types or even better, women with 'great genes' for a variety of reasons (athlete, scientist, humanitarian, etc.) Thanks for your response.

Yes, everybody wants to look like a famous scientist or humanitarian. Put some tight jeans on Greta Thunberg, Rashida Tlaib, or Neil deGrasse Tyson & teens would be lining up to buy that brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

Sydney has little traction with women. This is going to sound harsh but she wouldn’t have this fame if it wasn’t for her body. Her acting skills are average. I don’t think she has longevity and I think she knows it also. She is no Margot Robbie or Angelina Jolie talent wise, so she has to capitalize on her body until she ages out and gets replaced by a new hot girl.

I watched the ad and agree. Although she has a hot body she didn’t seem like she had any screen presence or charisma and her voice was flat. I hope she takes her fame from her body and uses it for something which benefits her future. It always comes out later that these young women have a love hate relationship with the focus on their bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How old is Sydney Sweeney? The ad looked like child porn to me. Like an Epstein video.

All I saw were her boobs, and those look like they belong to an adult woman. The ad is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody actually thinks that mannish thing is more appealing than a curvy blonde hair blue doe eyed big boobed coquet.

I don’t find Rachel Zigler incredibly attractive but neither is Sydney Sweeney. She’s incredibly sexy and hot. Her face is not blue for eyed. If she weren’t blonde and didn’t have those two other assets (which are impressive) she wouldn’t be nearly as popular as she is.

Stage actors don’t have to be as “hot” as television and movie actors. Also Rachel has never been sold as supposedly hot, I don’t know why people are comparing the two out of nowhere. Her talent is being good at musical theater, nobody pays her to do anything else. They really aren’t comparable people.

Rachel is a movie actress- she has played the lead female character in several movies.

Yes but most of her roles require her to sing and or dance, that is what she gets paid for, she doesn’t get paid to be hot. I want to see Rachel vocal frying on a Jeans ad as much as I want to hear Sydney Sweeney attempt to sing lead on West Side Story.

Irony is dead. How dare you criticize Sydney Sweeney’s genes/jeans ad! Let’s all pile on Rachel Ziegler for daring to play Snow White.

The witch was whiter than her.

Hah! You can stop beating the dead horse. Irony is really, truly dead now. No need to continue.

Just stating facts. That’s why the movie flopped, along with her career. It was poor woke casting. And she’s not pretty and the storyline was she’s the most beautiful in all of the land. That’s more subjective though, but she’s definitely not white as snow. Feel bad that role will haunt her for life. Sydney will always have great jeans.

LOL I guess that's the irony part? People who flaunt it with that kind of mean attitide are exactly they type people love, just love, watching get old.

How’s that irony? She will always have great Jeans She did a great ad & will be remembered for it like Cindy Crawford is remembered for the Pepsi ad. How well she ages is irrelevant.

Are we really comparing Sydney to Cindy? What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

Sydney has little traction with women. This is going to sound harsh but she wouldn’t have this fame if it wasn’t for her body. Her acting skills are average. I don’t think she has longevity and I think she knows it also. She is no Margot Robbie or Angelina Jolie talent wise, so she has to capitalize on her body until she ages out and gets replaced by a new hot girl.

I watched the ad and agree. Although she has a hot body she didn’t seem like she had any screen presence or charisma and her voice was flat. I hope she takes her fame from her body and uses it for something which benefits her future. It always comes out later that these young women have a love hate relationship with the focus on their bodies.

She wasn’t hired for her voice. Some of you will just never get it.

[Anonymous]

Sydney Sweeney discovered to be a registered Republican, water is wet

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1mf8j4s/sydney_sweeney_registered_as_a_member_of_the/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Sydney Sweeney’s genes are considered offensive & Nazi, I hope the progressives never look into Christian McCaffrey’s family tree.

Her genes aren’t offensive, the ad touting her genes are good because they are blue is offensive.

This attitude will lead to issues from brown eyed white people as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sydney Sweeney discovered to be a registered Republican, water is wet

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1mf8j4s/sydney_sweeney_registered_as_a_member_of_the/

I thought everyone knew she was MAGA? I guess this is just confirming it...

Some of the comments there are great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How old is Sydney Sweeney? The ad looked like child porn to me. Like an Epstein video.

JFC, you have issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Halle Berry has had a long and successful career in Hollywood. If she was praised as "having great genes" I would be more likely to agree, compared to a rather mediocre young actress who hasn't yet proven herself as a success in her field.

This is such a load of BS.

If there was a gorgeous image of Halle Berry looking like... well, Halle Berry... with a tagline 'She has great genes', then most people certainly wouldn't take that as a reference to her proven, decades-long success as a talented thespian.

+1
The hypocrisy isn't just incredibly stupid and obvious, it's also embarrassing. These people would be salivating and applauding if the ad featured Halle Berry or another WOC.