“Sydney Sweeney has great jeans” is a phrase that has angered many since the release of Sweeney’s American Eagle video advertisement in July. The ad showcased Sweeney in a full denim set, explaining genetics to the viewer. This advertisement caused mass criticism from audiences, but what is wrong with this video?
One of the largest arguments against this advertisement is the claim that it is promoting eugenics. In the ad, a voice over states that Sweeney has “great jeans” as a pun. This refers to the term genes, which is defined as a segment of DNA that is passed down from parent to offspring. While this could have just been referring to her beauty and body, many people perceived this comment to suggest something much darker.
The National Human Genome Research Institute (NIH) defines eugenics as “the scientifically inaccurate theory that humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations.” The NIH also explains how those who believe in this concept have a fallacious interpretation of Mendelian genetics. They believed that complex human traits were inherited in an uncomplicated manner. The effects of eugenic practices and ideas have been detrimental to society, contributing to racist and xenophobic perspectives.
Some viewers have considered the advertisement to promote these ideas based on a combination of the pun and the choice of actress: a blonde with blue eyes and a curvaceous figure. This has been criticized as promoting a limited, noninclusive concept of beauty, which paints a rather traditional, pro-white portrait.
The advertisement has also been critiqued for its hypersexual qualities. People have claimed that Sweeney was speaking in a seductive tone. Many viewers even compared her tone to that of her character, Cassie Howard, in HBO drama series Euphoria (2019-present). This character is defined by her sexual history and promiscuity, so using the same tone of voice in this ad was rather suggestive.
The video version of the advertisement also included subtly indecent images, such as a clip of Sweeney laying down, zipping up and buttoning her jeans. Perhaps the most vulgar aspect of this advertisement was an inappropriate comment made during a rather revealing shot. The camera zooms in and pans down vertically, making Sweeney’s chest the focus of the shot, at which point she states, “Hey, eyes up here!” This phrase is used most commonly by women in society to confront others who are looking at them inappropriately. Many viewers thought this use of the comment was degrading and objectifying to women. Some social media users also criticized that the sexualizing nature of the promotion felt very off, claiming that it seemed like the target audience for this women’s jeans ad was young men.
While all of these claims have some extent of validity, none address the true issues with this ad. What makes the Sydney Sweeney promotion so problematic? The 1980 Brooke Shields Calvin Klein jeans ad.
The 1980 Brooke Shields Calvin Klein ad was one of the most iconic advertisements of the 20th century — Sweeney’s American Eagle ad is a recreation of it. Shields’ ad possessed the same alluring qualities as Sweeney’s, but a key difference made her situation much darker. Brooke Shields was only 15 years old when she was cast as the star of this sexual innuendo. Despite the ad’s popularity, its sexualizing nature has been widely criticized as unethical and exploitative.
Perhaps the most disgusting comment made during Shields’ video was the line, “Nothing comes between me and my Calvins,” which caused many to question whether this was suggesting that Shields was not wearing undergarments. The public outrage that circulated from this ad caused it to be banned from some major media outlets.
The major issue within Sweeney’s advertisement is the fact that it is a recreation of this controversial Calvin Klein ad. Despite the success of Shields’ promotion, a minor should never be sexualized and exploited in the media. For a 15-year-old Shields to have been making these sexual comments is disgusting, and this likely opened an outlet to sexual predators.
Some may argue that Sweeney’s advertisement is not as problematic as its predecessor, since Sweeney was a consenting adult and fully aware of the implications. While this may be true, a celebration of an advertisement that originally portrayed the sexualization of a minor is completely repulsive, unethical and wrong. Shields’ ad should not be the topic of recreation, but rather a subject of remembrance, reflection and societal reform.
