Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist outrage. >First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good jeans" ad, now >she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting app that has her posing >nude with strategically placed sports equipment that barely covers the >promised land.
. . .
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist outrage. >> First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good jeans" ad, now
she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting app that has her posing >> nude with strategically placed sports equipment that barely covers the
promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what
any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
On 9/18/2026 12:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist outrage.
First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good jeans" ad, now >>> she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting app that has her posing
nude with strategically placed sports equipment that barely covers the
promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what
any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
The question is whether women should be regarded as sex objects.
After you've made those bold claims, how can you seriously object to Sweeney's
ad? Unless being a sex object is just cover for the real objection that they can't say out loud...
On Sep 18, 2026 at 8:01:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/18/2026 12:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist outrage.
First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good jeans" ad, now
she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting app that has her posing
nude with strategically placed sports equipment that barely covers the >>>> promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what >>> any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
The question is whether women should be regarded as sex objects.
It's an article of faith in modern feminism that women can be full-on prostitutes and no one should criticize them or suggest that it's not legitimate work. They say having an OnlyFans account is empowering for women.
After you've made those bold claims, how can you seriously object to Sweeney's
ad? Unless being a sex object is just cover for the real objection that they can't say out loud...
"Rules for thee but not for me; rules for me but not for thee." I guess.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026, BTR1701 wrote:
After you've made those bold claims, how can you seriously object to
Sweeney's ad? Unless being a sex object is just cover for the real
objection that they can't say out loud...
On Sep 18, 2026 at 8:01:49 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/18/2026 12:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist >>>>outrage. First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good >>>>jeans" ad, now she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting
app that has her posing nude with strategically placed sports equipment >>>>that barely covers the promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what >>>any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
The question is whether women should be regarded as sex objects.
It's an article of faith in modern feminism that women can be full-on >prostitutes and no one should criticize them or suggest that it's not >legitimate work. They say having an OnlyFans account is empowering
for women.
After you've made those bold claims, how can you seriously object to >Sweeney's ad? Unless being a sex object is just cover for the real
objection that they can't say out loud...
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 2026 at 8:01:49 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/18/2026 12:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist
outrage. First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good >>>>> jeans" ad, now she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting
app that has her posing nude with strategically placed sports equipment >>>>> that barely covers the promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what >>>> any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
The question is whether women should be regarded as sex objects.
It's an article of faith in modern feminism that women can be full-on
prostitutes and no one should criticize them or suggest that it's not
legitimate work. They say having an OnlyFans account is empowering
for women.
Sex is a mixture of dominance and submission, giving pleasure and
receiving pleasure, role playing, etc. If you talk about empowerment
during, then you are sucking all the pleasure out.
moviePig is an idiot.
motherly boobs be regarded as a sex object? Does moviePig not understand
that if a man doesn't want a woman to bear his children, there is no
more human race? I don't think we want to reproduce as suggested in
Brave New World and other novels like it.
After you've made those bold claims, how can you seriously object to
Sweeney's ad? Unless being a sex object is just cover for the real
objection that they can't say out loud...
What, men pretending to be women aren't sex objects lacking her boobs?
Does that bitch have any talent or is she just a typical American?
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026, blank verse wrote:
Does that bitch have any talent or is she just a typical American?
She's a generic busty blonde trope who also seems to have a lot of
business sense. So, yes, a typical American. Who needs talent if you have
a bod and ambition?
Do you actually hear yourself? You don't have to like her, but agreeing
with someone calling her a bitch makes you both look impotent, and
condemning someone for being ambitious makes you look like you thrive on welfare. Guess we don't have a welcome new participant.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
She's a generic busty blonde trope who also seems to have a lot of >>>business sense. So, yes, a typical American. Who needs talent if you
have a bod and ambition?
Do you actually hear yourself? You don't have to like her, but agreeing >>with someone calling her a bitch makes you both look impotent, and >>condemning someone for being ambitious makes you look like you thrive on >>welfare. Guess we don't have a welcome new participant.
Luckily, you're just putting words in my mouth and I didn't say either of >those things.
I ask again. Do you actually hear yourself?
On 9/19/2026 2:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 2026 at 8:01:49 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 9/18/2026 12:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist >>>>>> outrage. First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good >>>>>> jeans" ad, now she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting >>>>>> app that has her posing nude with strategically placed sports equipment >>>>>> that barely covers the promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what >>>>> any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
The question is whether women should be regarded as sex objects.
It's an article of faith in modern feminism that women can be full-on
prostitutes and no one should criticize them or suggest that it's not
legitimate work. They say having an OnlyFans account is empowering
for women.
Sex is a mixture of dominance and submission, giving pleasure and
receiving pleasure, role playing, etc. If you talk about empowerment
during, then you are sucking all the pleasure out.
moviePig is an idiot.
moviePig may well be an idiot for shedding light on something you claim never to understand:
"I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with
what any other woman should or should not wear."
As you seem to be still blocked on it, note that no group (e.g., women) enjoys being (sex-)objectified. So, when a member of that group gives public license to such a demeaning view, there's resistance.
Understand?
On 9/19/2026 2:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 2026 at 8:01:49 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 9/18/2026 12:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist >>>>>> outrage. First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good >>>>>> jeans" ad, now she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting >>>>>> app that has her posing nude with strategically placed sports equipment >>>>>> that barely covers the promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what >>>>> any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
The question is whether women should be regarded as sex objects.
It's an article of faith in modern feminism that women can be full-on
prostitutes and no one should criticize them or suggest that it's not
legitimate work. They say having an OnlyFans account is empowering
for women.
Sex is a mixture of dominance and submission, giving pleasure and
receiving pleasure, role playing, etc. If you talk about empowerment
during, then you are sucking all the pleasure out.
moviePig is an idiot.
moviePig may well be an idiot for shedding light on something you claim >never to understand:
"I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with
what any other woman should or should not wear."
As you seem to be still blocked on it, note that no group (e.g., women) >enjoys being (sex-)objectified. So, when a member of that group gives >public license to such a demeaning view, there's resistance.
Understand?
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026, blank verse wrote:
Does that bitch have any talent or is she just a typical American?
She's a generic busty blonde trope who also seems to have a lot of
business sense. So, yes, a typical American. Who needs talent if you have
a bod and ambition?
If women don't enjoy it, why are they all cheering on the Only Fans
women saying "you go girl!"
On Sep 19, 2026 at 1:36:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/19/2026 2:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 2026 at 8:01:49 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> On 9/18/2026 12:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sydney Sweeney seems to have mastered the art of monetizing leftist >>>>>>> outrage. First she was accused of promoting eugenics with her "good >>>>>>> jeans" ad, now she's taking a turn at shilling for a sports betting >>>>>>> app that has her posing nude with strategically placed sports equipment
that barely covers the promised land.
I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with what >>>>>> any other woman should or should not wear.
Are you suggesting she's paying people to criticize her?
The question is whether women should be regarded as sex objects.
It's an article of faith in modern feminism that women can be full-on >>>> prostitutes and no one should criticize them or suggest that it's not >>>> legitimate work. They say having an OnlyFans account is empowering
for women.
Sex is a mixture of dominance and submission, giving pleasure and
receiving pleasure, role playing, etc. If you talk about empowerment
during, then you are sucking all the pleasure out.
moviePig is an idiot.
moviePig may well be an idiot for shedding light on something you claim
never to understand:
"I never understand how one woman's nudity has anything to do with
what any other woman should or should not wear."
As you seem to be still blocked on it, note that no group (e.g., women)
enjoys being (sex-)objectified. So, when a member of that group gives
public license to such a demeaning view, there's resistance.
Understand?
But these are the same people who constantly scream with red-faced rabid ferocity "My body, my choice!"
Except, apparently when a woman makes a choice with her body they don't like, then they claim authority over her body.
Understand?
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 232:04:47 |
| Calls: | 221 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 84,479 |