Sex Sells

Anais Loeppky, Web Editor

Sydney Sweeney made her Euphoria debut in 2019 and quickly went from rising starlet to full-blown Hollywood It-Girl. She had this girl-next-door quality that made her feel surprisingly relatable for someone living a very unrelatable life.

In early interviews, Sweeney often talked about growing up in a working-class family and having to work hard for everything she achieved. She also let audiences in on her life outside of Hollywood, most notably her passion for rebuilding cars. 

She was selling the idea that, underneath it all, she was still just a normal, down-to-earth girl who happened to become very, very famous.

As Sweeney’s fame grew, however, so did the brand deals.

It did not take long for companies to realise that this relatable up-and-comer was incredibly marketable. Sweeney was no longer just an actress selling movies. She was selling jeans, soap, sex appeal and, apparently, sports.

“Sydney Sweeney has great genes”

At least, that was the message American Eagle seemed to be sending with its 2025 denim campaign, which drew widespread backlash from every possible angle.

The campaign, which repeatedly played on the homophones “jeans” and “genes,” featured Sweeney declaring that her “jeans” were great before the ad shifted to a discussion of genetics.

In one version, she explains that “genes are passed down from parents and can determine traits such as hair colour and eye colour.”

Critics and fans were quick to respond to the campaign, arguing that pairing Sweeney with the idea of having “great genes” promoted a narrow-minded and outdated standard of beauty. Some went further, arguing that the campaign echoed ideas associated with eugenics and white supremacy.

However, the responses from both Sweeney and American Eagle did little to quiet the conversation. 

American Eagle maintained that the campaign was about denim, later emphasising that “great jeans look good on everyone.” But when genetics are part of the punchline, it is difficult to convince people the joke was only about pants.

While Sweeney waited nearly 6 months before addressing the backlash publicly, her response was not the apology fans were hoping for.

“I was honestly surprised by the reaction,” Sweeney explained in an interview with People Magazine. “I did it because I love the jeans and love the brand.” 

For many, this response seemed rather dismissive of the larger issues at play, including its similarity to Brooke Shields’ infamous Calvin Klein jeans campaign from 1980, which featured a 15-year-old Shields in a highly sexualised jean commercial. 

Nonetheless, Vanity Fair reported only days after the advertisement’s release that American Eagle experienced a 10 per cent increase in stock, adding nearly $200 million to the company’s value. 

So, although the conversation shifted quickly from “Sydney Sweeney looks great in jeans” to beauty standards and race, neither the brand nor its star seemed particularly eager to address why audiences were uncomfortable in the first place.

Sex sells

Another controversial collaboration was Sweeney’s partnership with Dr Squatch, in which the company produced soap containing her actual bathwater. 

Only 5,000 bars were made and sold for $8 each, with some later appearing online for hundreds of dollars.

In an interview with GQ Magazine, just months before the release of her American Eagle ad, Sweeney said fans joked about wanting her bathwater in the past, so she decided to give them exactly what they asked for.

The campaign sparked a broader conversation about feminism, and the increasingly blurry line between a woman owning her sexuality and a corporation monetising it.

Because yes, Sweeney can be sexy. She can pose naked. She can sell bathwater. She can do whatever she wants with her own body.

But feminism gets a little more complicated when a corporation is standing behind the camera with a marketing budget. 

Women in sports?

In September 2026, Sweeney appeared in yet another ad, this time for a sports betting advertisement for Novig. The campaign features a nude Sweeney posing with different sports equipment and mock-playing sports. 

The ad was viewed millions of times and quickly drew criticism from female athletes, including Olympic champions Ariarne Titmus and Sophie Capewell, who argued that it sexualised women in a sporting context and distracted from the skill and dedication of female athletes.

Women have spent decades fighting for the right to compete, with legislation such as Title IX helping to dramatically expand athletic opportunities for girls and women in the United States.

But getting women onto the field has never meant putting an end to the countless tired stereotypes.

The criticism of Sweeney’s Novig campaign is not necessarily that she is a woman who chose to be sexual. The issue is what happens when a sports advertisement prioritises a celebrity’s marketability over athletes who have spent their lives championing the sports they represent.

Certainly a female Olympic athlete could have been at the centre of this campaign, right? 

At what cost?

Sweeney is not the first woman Hollywood has packaged for the male gaze. 

She is a striking example of how quickly “relatable” can become “sellable,” effectively alienating an audience base that no longer aligns with the message she represents. 

And while she certainly has attained her Hollywood status, at what cost?