Everyone and their mother is talking about Sydney Sweeney’s latest ad campaign for American Eagle, and not in a good way. 

In case you aren’t familiar with one of these seemingly innocuous advertisements that’s made headlines and has already inspired countless think-pieces across every possible platform, allow me to set the scene for you. The camera glides sensually over Sweeney’s body as she says, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color.” There is a pause as she locks eyes with the camera and sultrily finishes with “My jeans are blue,” the advertisement closing off with an overlaid wall of text that proudly reads “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.”

Watching this ad, you can see how it could ruffle some feathers given that the pun (“jeans” versus “genes”) segues into heavily positioning Sweeney (a bottle-blonde, blue-eyed, busty, conventionally attractive young woman) as genetically superior in an era where we’re seeing severe levels of censorship, pushes against DEI initiatives, and a major stifling of BIPOC voices. Here’s the thing; every choice in an advertising campaign of that magnitude is intentional – from a muted brown background and the pair of slightly oversized jeans Sweeney wears for the advertisement, down to the controversial ending tagline. The question is; who was American Eagle marketing these jeans to? Certainly not to their typical audience, as sub-brand Aerie, for instance, has long prided itself on embracing diversity. No, this advertisement feels as if it’s more catered to the men who fawn over her, and it’s all the more evident when you see dozens of tweets celebrating the death of “woke advertisement” and drooling over this All-American sweetheart (and that’s not to mention the outcry against Sweeney’s political scandals back in 2023). It’s even gotten to the point where political figureheads like Donald Trump and JD Vance have even talked about it. And while it’s not necessarily Sweeney’s fault that she’s been primarily sexualized and co-opted by MAGA fanatics, her involvement in ad campaigns like this one end up coming across as insensitive and even racially charged. 

If we were to give them the benefit of the doubt, however, one could point to the famous Calvin Klein campaign of the same vein as inspiration, produced back in 1980 and featuring an approximately fifteen-year-old Brooke Shields. One of these advertisements especially comes to mind as the possible blueprint for its 2025 counterpart – in the ad, Brooke studiously alludes to genetic superiority and its role in assisting evolution, all while taking off thick-rimmed glasses, writhing on the ground breathlessly to slip some jeans on, unbuttoning her blouse, and shaking her brown locks down from an updo as she flirtatiously talks about selective mating. 

This promotional content was incredibly successful for Calvin Klein, and it’s likely that American Eagle imagined they’d be able to also bank on this concept (in fact, they reportedly have seen some growth from the controversy). But there are major differences that make this ad idea – which was already hard to watch in 1980 – even less palatable for a lot of today’s audience. Brooke Shields was still an adolescent when these ads aired, and she has since discussed her memories of being sexualized throughout her career – especially during her earliest times as a child actress – in the 2023 Hulu documentary Pretty Baby. There’s no denying that Sweeney is also being branded as a sex symbol, and it’s important to acknowledge that her breakout role in Euphoria as troubled highschooler Cassie Howard involved onscreen nudity and promiscuity that greatly contributed to her rise in popularity. But there is a clear distinction between the helpless position in which a younger Shields was placed in, made to recite a script that would continue to contribute to her sexualization, and the agency and choice that a twenty-seven-year-old Sweeney has in determining her personal image. Where young actresses like Shields were never in control of their sexuality being exploited, Sweeney is able to decide which brand partnerships or campaigns to accept and endorse more freely. This isn’t the first time Sweeney has been featured in an ad because of her sex appeal, and it surely won’t be the last. She’s also well aware of her blatant objectification – she even plays into it. 

Before American Eagle, the actress’s partnership with the Dr. Squatch Soap Co. as a “Body Wash Genie” featured suggestive one-line jokes (like the tagline implying these products are “For men who prefer natural”) and plenty of adoring, ogling men being showcased in the ads. The masculine hygiene company even marketed a soap allegedly created with the actress’s bathwater. I found myself agreeing with Inez Feltscher Stepman, a senior contributor at the Federalist, who writes about Sweeney on Twitter: "Men don't ONLY like Sydney Sweeney for her boobs, they like her [because] she's the first starlet in a long time to unrepentantly and cheerfully chase the male gaze. She is clearly giving permission to ogle and enjoying that feminine power.” 

Previously, we’ve talked about how there are some subsets of women who uphold many of the patriarchal and misogynistic structures that work to dually uphold androcentrism and degrade femininity—trad wives, pick-mes, “boy moms,” and the like. Sydney Sweeney’s case is interesting because it doesn’t fall under a clean-cut “antifeminist” category in the way that an Instagram microcelebrity who preaches “family values” and makes cereal from scratch does. I wouldn’t even venture to necessarily label her as antifeminist. But given her large platform, there’s no denying that a focus on male attention is still very much present, especially when looking through her acting history. While Sweeney claims to seek nuance and diversity in her roles, she doesn’t shy away from SNL skits or blockbuster roles where her sexual allure is both the selling point and the punchline. So, where is the line drawn between what constitutes female empowerment, and what instead can be classified as self-objectification to win over the male gaze?

Now, I’m not telling you to grab your pitchforks and rally against Sweeney. Maybe we are all reading way too much into an ad that just wanted to use Sweeney’s beauty and popularity to sell a pair of jeans, and that’s that. But this campaign could be (and has been) read as awkward at best, and outright evocative of eugenicist dogwhistles at worst. The cheeky double-entendre of Sweeney having “great [genes]” also doesn’t do them any favors.