A naked inconsistency – by Simon O’Connor
What the reaction to another Sydney Sweeney advertisement reveals about consistency, power, and political double standards.
“So it is fine for Democrats and left-aligned sports stars to appear naked on magazines, or activists to attack public buildings and police to protest climate change or Gaza. But for those on the right, simply using the wrong pronouns is enough to have your job cancelled.”
I recently interviewed Andrew Doyle for a podcast. Andrew’s a comedian, satirist, author, broadcaster, and the man behind Titania McGrath – a fictional character who is super-woke and extremely entertaining.
One thing we discussed was how many people struggle with the most basic thought experiment: taking a position they hold dear and considering how it would look if circumstances were reversed. The classic ‘what if the shoe was on the other foot’ moment. For example, the left of politics frequently call for hate speech laws but fail to consider how those same laws could one day be used against them. The same applies to those on the right who celebrate a strong leader taking control without asking who might inherit that power next.
So what does the latest uproar around Sydney Sweeney have to do with any of this? It is that many progressives objecting loudly to her latest advertisement show little willingness to consider the contradictions and double standards in their criticisms of her.
For those wondering ‘who’ and ‘what’? Sydney is an actress, best known for her role in the TV series ‘The White Lotus’ and subsequently for headlining advertisements for a denim clothing brand which also attracted a lot of attention.
Novig is a sports trading platform in the United States where users bet against one another rather than through a traditional bookmaker such as the TAB. It’s the equivalent of Napster and the sharing of music files (for those old enough to remember this reference!).
The new ads are highly sexualised with a naked Sweeney encouraging people to use Novig, while strategically holding various pieces of sports equipment and in provocative poses. Put simply, it is the objectification of feminine beauty to sell a product. Nothing particularly new or groundbreaking.
And despite my Irish Catholic background, I’m not a gambler so no amount of Sydney Sweeney is going to change me. I can count the number of Lotto tickets I’ve bought on one hand, and while my late father was racehorse mad, I only take a flutter if I am at a racecourse – and the last time was around 20 years ago!
As you can imagine everything about the ad is deliberate. Sweeney, Novig, and everyone involved knew it would attract attention and go viral. And while criticism was expected, I was surprised to see so many progressives outraged that Sweeney is using her body this way.
The conservative response doesn’t require much explanation, including that this advertisement is viewed as exploitation and commodification. And yes, while Sweeney has clearly decided to be part of that, self-exploitation is not something to celebrate.
Progressive outrage, however, appears to rest on a number of contradictions and arbitrary positions. Does the human body have value and dignity or not? Are people free to decide what they wish to do or not do? How can an advertisement involving the human body be harmful?
A conservative should be able to readily respond to these, but the progressives appear all at sea. Outraged at Sweeney’s nakedness and yet most progressives have no issue with pornography, pride parades, and the likes of OnlyFans. For proponents of choice, all of a sudden they have found a line they don’t think choice should cross and it turns out to be an actress provocatively appearing in a gambling ad.
The contradictions also extend to beauty. Progressives are quick to say everyone and everything is beautiful, just not someone like Sweeney. They also have no issue with the naked expressions of the likes of loudmouth soccer player Megan Rapinoe, Serena Williams, and others both female and male.
How to explain this? Well, the simple answer is that Sweeney is not part of the correct group identities. She is a beautiful white woman and one who has not explicitly endorsed the Democrats or other left-wing causes. There is even a chance she sympathises with the Republicans!
As I’ve noted before, one of the insidious aspects of group identity is that it requires those within the collective to hold an agreed set of political views. You are not your identity, according to progressives, unless you also hold the requisite left-wing views.
It is, in my view, an extraordinary position and yet one that many progressives appear to hold.
So it is fine for Democrats and left-aligned sports stars to appear naked on magazines, or activists to attack public buildings and police to protest climate change or Gaza. But for those on the right, simply using the wrong pronouns is enough to have your job cancelled.
Whether from the left or right of politics, we would all do well ‘to put the shoe on the other foot’ and consider the consistency of our positions.
This applies to Sydney as well, who in accepting a substantial amount of money, has chosen to cheapen and commodify herself to draw mostly men into gambling.
Beauty leading to ugliness. Now there’s an inconsistency.
I mentioned at the start my latest podcast with Andrew Doyle. Best known to many for creating the fictional and satirical persona, Titania McGrath, he and I discuss the importance of comedy and satire in society, free speech, the renewed push for blasphemy laws and more.
