[Tiste Simeon]

Has she torched her career though? I bet she still gets plenty of roles. People want to see her. Admittedly, a lot of people who really want to see her so so because of her looks & boobs (I'd advise against comment sections on just about any platform event sure is featured! The amount of pervy horny dudes...) but I'm guessing she will be fine.

[QuickTidal]

Tiste Simeon, on 29 July 2025 - 12:13 PM, said:

Has she torched her career though? I bet she still gets plenty of roles. People want to see her. Admittedly, a lot of people who really want to see her so so because of her looks & boobs (I'd advise against comment sections on just about any platform event sure is featured! The amount of pervy horny dudes...) but I'm guessing she will be fine.

I think two things will work against her. Hollywood plays identity politics well, and she will be persona non-grata in a lot of circles due to this...and when the political pendulum swings (and it will swing; it always does) back to the left she will have to answer for doing it.

You could be right though, and she skates by as these people often do.

But imagine her showing to for work on a new season of EUPHORIA and having to explain herself to Zendaya and Alexa Demie...Ooof, I would not want to be in that room.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 29 July 2025 - 11:47 AM, said:

You want to know what's really interesting about the whole American Eagle/Eugenics/Sydney Sweeney ad controversy? If they had just lined up a diverse group of actors or models for the campaign, like a slew of different races, sexes, cultures, ect. and played out the "I have good genes" thing across a bunch of ads all with different people under that tagline...it's still tone deaf, but at least it's not the blatant pandering to the white nationalists...

But then they'd have to be NOT white supremacists for that to be the case, and all you need is to look at the CEO's donations in the last election cycle to see who he supports, and why the ad campaign is like this.

Although, watching Sydney Sweeney absolutely TORCH her career with one role choice is wild.

Anyways, American Eagle has not been relevant fashion wise since the early to mid 2000's, so we can safely ignore them.

A large percentage---perhaps the majority?---of the people complaining would object to anything endorsing the idea of "great genes". Especially those who denounce it as "eugenics" based on the idea that selecting for particular genes is bad (unless it's pure natural selection?), and selecting for genes associated with particular beauty standards is extremely bad (so sexual selection is evil?...). I'm surprised the reaction has apparently focused on that rather than the issue of combining it with pseudo-universal beauty standards as presented by a blue-eyed white woman (her natural hair color is brown, but she dyes it blonde---what beautiful genes!).

I'd guess most people will assume that by "good genes" she's talking about her big boobs. It's mildly humorous. Almost a parody of the likes of Trump claiming he must be smart because one of his uncles is, therefore he must have "great genes".

If the owner of the company really is a MAGA quasi-Neo-Nazi then the leftist backlash may be doing them more benefit than harm, because most Americans will probably assume it's a "woke" overreaction.

OTOH there is that video---which "now seems to be hidden on American Eagle's YouTube account"---where she says, "My genes are blue". While early human inhabitants of the British Isles had black skin and blue eyes, obviously blue eyes are associated with the Nazi racial ideal. While Hitler himself wasn't blond,

Quote

As has often been said, Hitler's eyes were startling and unforgettable – they seemed pale blue in color, were intense, unwavering, hypnotic.

https://rarehistoric...r-date-unknown/

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 29 July 2025 - 01:11 PM

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 29 July 2025 - 01:02 PM, said:

A large percentage---perhaps the majority?---of the people complaining would object to anything endorsing the idea of "great genes". Especially those who denounce it as "eugenics" based on the idea that selecting for particular genes is bad (unless it's pure natural selection?), and selecting for genes associated with particular beauty standards is extremely bad (so sexual selection is evil?...).

Putting eugenics into scare quotes and downplaying why this ad campaign is a racist dog whistle is certainly a choice Azath.

Also what is sexual selection? dafuq?

Azath Vitr (D, on 29 July 2025 - 01:02 PM, said:

If the owner of the company really is a MAGA quasi-Neo-Nazi then the leftist backlash may be doing them more benefit than harm, because most Americans will probably assume it's a "woke" overreaction.

Two things...1. Assuming that the left should care what the unhinged MAGAts think, when they lost their collective shit because a trans person endorsed a shit beer they like and a lot of those men can't sort out why they are attracted to trans women so they lash out and destroy beer cases THEY bought...is wild. 2. Backlash affecting billionaire's bottom line, especially billionaires who need the brand to surface after being underwater for a decade....MAGAts are vocal, but they are still a minority and they do not shop at overpriced teen retailers.

Azath Vitr (D, on 29 July 2025 - 01:02 PM, said:

OTOH there is that video---which "now seems to be hidden on American Eagle's YouTube account"---where she says, "My genes are blue".

This is actually more problematic due to the "Blue blood" being considered racial superiority/nobility not blue eyes.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 29 July 2025 - 01:16 PM, said:

Putting eugenics into scare quotes and downplaying why this ad campaign is a racist dog whistle is certainly a choice Azath.

Also what is sexual selection? dafuq?

What I primarily meant by putting "eugenics" in scare quotes is that the idea that saying "great genes" = "promoting eugenics" is a big stretch. There's a huge difference between promoting eugenics and acknowledging that genes (of course mediated by environmental factors, etc.) have a major role in things like facial features and breast size (though obviously those can be altered... for example, Brazil

Quote

recognizes a right to beauty, which in practical terms means subsidizing nearly half a million surgeries each year, according to Carmen Alvaro Jarrín, the author of "The Biopolitics of Beauty: Cosmetic Citizenship and Affective Capital in Brazil." In the 1950s, a famed plastic surgeon convinced the president that ugliness can cause painful psychological suffering and that treatment should be covered. While at first he was referring to those with congenital deformities and burn victims, most procedures covered today are purely aesthetic.

Opinion | In Brazil, Beauty Is a Right. Are They On to Something? - The New York Times

And as I've said before, so is equating non-oppressive and science-based positive eugenics with the oppressive eugenics movements of the 20th century (forced sterilization, racist pseudo-science, etc.) and Nazism. "Oh, that's eugenics, therefore it's equivalent to being pro-Nazi!"

The racist dog-whistles are 1. the fact that she's white and talking about having "great genes" and 2. her saying "my genes are blue", right? Those might be intended as racist dog-whistles, but if they're not in an explicitly MAGA context, most people will interpret that as a paranoid stretch. Not sure that the fact the company's owner donated to Trump's campaign necessarily makes him MAGA---though with a name like "American Eagle" it certainly seems plausible.

As for sexual selection: I'm sure you've read about it before. Along with natural selection it drives evolution (in organisms that reproduce sexually, that is).

Quote

Two things...1. Assuming that the left should care what the unhinged MAGAts think, when they lost their collective shit because a trans person endorsed a shit beer they like and a lot of those men can't sort out why they are attracted to trans women so they lash out and destroy beer cases THEY bought...is wild. 2. Backlash affecting billionaire's bottom line, especially billionaires who need the brand to surface after being underwater for a decade....MAGAts are vocal, but they are still a minority and they do not shop at overpriced teen retailers.

I wasn't referring to what MAGA thinks, but to what most people in the United States who read about this controversy are likely to think. The ad seems to be tailored to provoke extremely online leftists into a frenzy that the mainstream will perceive as "woke", while appearing innocuous to the mainstream. The backlash to the backlash is more likely to benefit the owner's bottom line, especially since many (most?) anti-MAGA people aren't going to buy from a brand labeled "American Eagle" during the Trump regime anyway.

Quote

This is actually more problematic due to the "Blue blood" being considered racial superiority/nobility not blue eyes.

The phrase "blue blood" has become so rare in the modern United States that I didn't even make that connection, and I'm confident most Americans won't. IDK if that particular phrase is still a major thing in the UK or other Commonwealth nations---obviously the UK itself still has a bunch of inbred aristocrats. (Why didn't the evil old eugenicists ever come for them?... oh right, because most of them are still rerlatively rich and powerful.)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 29 July 2025 - 03:06 PM

[Macros]

And to turf a further log on the fire.
I dont get the hype about Sydney Sweeney, sure she has a great figure but I dont think she's overly "pretty".

That aside, at the very least its a woefully tone deaf advert, but I'd say you track the line far enough you'll find the source has a darker undertone

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Macros, on 30 July 2025 - 04:45 AM, said:

And to turf a further log on the fire.
I dont get the hype about Sydney Sweeney, sure she has a great figure but I dont think she's overly "pretty".

That aside, at the very least its a woefully tone deaf advert, but I'd say you track the line far enough you'll find the source has a darker undertone

Extremely large breasts are like a peacock's gigantic unwieldy tail, or enormous antlers that make it harder to run---an example of sexual selection going against natural selection, increasing risk of death (from breast cancer---not to mention moving out of the way of things, and running away from bears or alligators---or fires or floods), and generally making life more difficult (back pain, etc.---I've known a few women who had breast reduction surgery and were much happier afterwards).

And I agree that her face isn't especially pretty---for a Hollywood actress I'd say she's below average. They should be using CGI on her face. Of course judgments about attractiveness vary. Perhaps in the future we'll have the option to swap out actors' faces with faces we prefer---perhaps as automatically judged by AI based on our biometric responses and real-time neural scans. I don't find large breasts attractive, so perhaps it would automatically shrink her breast size for me too.

Glancing over mainstream social media and forum reactions it seems like the vast majority of people---including most Democrats---are assuming the backlash is just ridiculous far left paranoia. Trying hard to find something to get upset about. Wonder if the marketing agency did studies to land on something that would inspire that sort of reaction among some extremely online (and vocal) leftists while making it seem like a ridiculous paranoid misinterpretation to most people. Innocent-seeming dog whistles for white supremacists. That way they get to eat their cake and have yours too.

Plus all the free publicity...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 30 July 2025 - 10:42 AM

[Tsundoku]

Meh, it's all a storm in a D cup.

[Tiste Simeon]

Discussions like these are welcome as they help me keep abreast of what's going on...

[Tsundoku]

Ya know, if AE had a bit more nous, they might have had a parallel ad featuring Briana Smith. Would anyone debate her having great genes?

Now, in the interests of full disclosure (and science!), I give you the aforementioned lady. Do you think anyone would complain about her in an AE jeans ad?

Attached File(s)

•  Briana-Smith-curls-Lingerie(PR)-8455843.jpeg (48.27K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Tsundoku, on 30 July 2025 - 11:47 AM, said:

Ya know, if AE had a bit more nous, they might have had a parallel ad featuring Briana Smith. Would anyone debate her having great genes?

From the perspective of natural selection (as opposed to sexual selection) in modern industrialized societies with minimal risk for most people of death from starvation or exposure to the elements, genes for large breasts are objectively inferior. (One catch: for many social animals, including humans, physical attractiveness tends to make it easier to acquire resources, including better nutrition and---in the United States---access to better healthcare. And better resources for escaping from natural disasters, better security, etc. So the overall impact of big breasts might balance out in favor of greater fitness in terms of natural selection, even in societies with social safety nets. But probably not. Which is to say: not now, and not yet... but even if we get to the point where we're constantly fleeing fires, floods, and marauding fascists, it's not clear whether having big breasts to entice wealthy would-be protectors will outweigh being able to run faster (and have less protuberance to catch on fire... running around with gigantic flaming breasts would not be good, especially since the fire could spread straight to the heart).)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 30 July 2025 - 01:30 PM

[Macros]

swap would be protectors with would be predators and you're hitting closer to the mark with the money men you alluding to

[Cause]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 July 2025 - 01:30 PM, said:

 Tsundoku, on 30 July 2025 - 11:47 AM, said:

Ya know, if AE had a bit more nous, they might have had a parallel ad featuring Briana Smith. Would anyone debate her having great genes?

From the perspective of natural selection (as opposed to sexual selection) in modern industrialized societies with minimal risk for most people of death from starvation or exposure to the elements, genes for large breasts are objectively inferior. (One catch: for many social animals, including humans, physical attractiveness tends to make it easier to acquire resources, including better nutrition and---in the United States---access to better healthcare. And better resources for escaping from natural disasters, better security, etc. So the overall impact of big breasts might balance out in favor of greater fitness in terms of natural selection, even in societies with social safety nets. But probably not. Which is to say: not now, and not yet... but even if we get to the point where we're constantly fleeing fires, floods, and marauding fascists, it's not clear whether having big breasts to entice wealthy would-be protectors will outweigh being able to run faster (and have less protuberance to catch on fire... running around with gigantic flaming breasts would not be good, especially since the fire could spread straight to the heart).)

Not objectively inferior at all. You are confusing fitness as we normally use the term (strong, fast, durable) with fit from ‘survival of the fittes’t which just means made the most copies.

If big boobss get you laid you win. If big boobs can get you resources so you can raise kids, you win. If big boobs get you raped and pregnant from an evolutionary standpoint point your genes win even if you as the organism lost. If breast cancer kills you at 40 but you already had all the children you were going to have their is no reason for this weakness in your genes to be lost.

The reason so many diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer etc strike is when we are old is because their is no evolutionary pressure to remove them.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 31 July 2025 - 08:07 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 July 2025 - 01:30 PM, said:

Tsundoku, on 30 July 2025 - 11:47 AM, said:

Ya know, if AE had a bit more nous, they might have had a parallel ad featuring Briana Smith. Would anyone debate her having great genes?

From the perspective of natural selection (as opposed to sexual selection) in modern industrialized societies with minimal risk for most people of death from starvation or exposure to the elements, genes for large breasts are objectively inferior. (One catch: for many social animals, including humans, physical attractiveness tends to make it easier to acquire resources, including better nutrition and---in the United States---access to better healthcare. And better resources for escaping from natural disasters, better security, etc. So the overall impact of big breasts might balance out in favor of greater fitness in terms of natural selection, even in societies with social safety nets. But probably not. Which is to say: not now, and not yet... but even if we get to the point where we're constantly fleeing fires, floods, and marauding fascists, it's not clear whether having big breasts to entice wealthy would-be protectors will outweigh being able to run faster (and have less protuberance to catch on fire... running around with gigantic flaming breasts would not be good, especially since the fire could spread straight to the heart).)

Not objectively inferior at all. You are confusing fitness as we normally use the term (strong, fast, durable) with fit from 'survival of the fittes't which just means made the most copies.

If big boobss get you laid you win. If big boobs can get you resources so you can raise kids, you win. If big boobs get you raped and pregnant from an evolutionary standpoint point your genes win even if you as the organism lost. If breast cancer kills you at 40 but you already had all the children you were going to have their is no reason for this weakness in your genes to be lost.

The reason so many diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer etc strike is when we are old is because their is no evolutionary pressure to remove them.

No, I was referring specifically to factors which contribute to survival for reproduction and for helping to ensure the survival of your offspring. Many women get breast cancer before 40, including several I've known personally. And many women (including my own mother) have children in their early 40's. And obviously remaining alive for at least about 18 years after childbirth is conducive towards the survival of offspring.

Quote

While breast cancer incidence in younger women is still low—about 49 per 100,000 in 2019, the most recent data available—it's a deeply concerning trend, especially since women under 40 are nearly 40 percent more likely to die from their breast cancer than women over 40. Currently, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women aged 20 to 49 in the U.S.

https://www.bcrf.org...er-young-women/

You're confusing natural selection with sexual selection (with "if big boobs get you raped and pregnant").

On top of breast cancer, as I wrote, you can't run as fast with big breasts (from a possibly fatal emergency, like fire, flood, marauding fascists, etc.---or to rescue your offspring from danger). And are probably more likely to get murdered. And yes, more body area to catch fire. Though I'd suppose they might provide some slight protection against knives to the heart and some other injuries...

And I did already acknowledge that the social resources afforded by perceived attractiveness could offset the negatives in terms of fitness for natural selection. Personally, while I'm attracted to women, I don't find large breasts attractive, and I suspect that a large part of the preference for very large breasts is mediated by culture, just like the preference for thin women over fat women (yes it appears in many cultures, but so did/does the preference for fat women, which culture seems to have largely obliterated among most of the US population).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 31 July 2025 - 08:54 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

In case anyone needs a primer on sexual selection:

Quote

Sexual selection is not a subcategory of natural selection, as Darwin made very clear: it arises from differences in mating success, whereas natural selection is due to variance in all other fitness components. This simple delineation comes closest to Darwin's concepts and distinctions. What Darwin apparently did not clearly appreciate, however, is that sexual selection is often stronger than natural selection, as it frequently drives trait values beyond their naturally selected optima. Furthermore, this occurs even though sexual selection largely acts on only half the population (usually males), a situation that has been referred to as the quantitative paradox of sexual selection.

https://www.scienced...960982210015198

[amphibian]

I think using our time on discussing big boobs and evolution may not be the most effective thing to do. Especially since there's not really big boobs havers or experts in this talk (at least right now).

[Tsundoku]

How about connoisseurs?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

amphibian, on 01 August 2025 - 02:32 PM, said:

I think using our time on discussing big boobs and evolution may not be the most effective thing to do. Especially since there's not really big boobs havers or experts in this talk (at least right now).

You mean you don't want to argue in court that being a person with big boobs is a disability?... (With lots of witnesses to present...)

But you may want to wait until the Supreme Court gets replaced with a Cyber-Trump... or enough full-blown Trump judges overflowing with unprecedented (legal) opinions to help legality... "evolve".

[Briar King]

Does anyone in here know that American Eagle wasn’t planning on a series of ads? What an overblown nothing burger! Though I do think AE could potentially be in the shit legal wise aping a 45 yr old Brooke Shield Calvin Keline ad. We ll see.

This shit has been wild as fuck to watch fall out. Get a grip people.