Why one TikTok commenter is wrong about Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle Ad
And why you too, might enjoy reading evolutionary biology
In this issue
How the male gaze still powers sales, even when the product is for women
Why understanding evolutionary psychology won’t make you like the ad, but will make you smarter about it
REVIEWER’S WANTED: Always wanted to read a book? Now you can, or at least chapters of mine as they go into review. Scroll to the bottom for more.
Plus: our summer refer-a-thon rolls on. Top referrer gets a pack of Neuro Gum, hand-blessed by the founders on our upcoming podcast (Naz, you’re still dominating).
People read books for all sorts of reasons.
Sometimes it’s because a professor tells you to. Sometimes the WiFi’s down and you’ve got no better option. And sometimes you read because you’re preparing to tell someone they’re flat-out wrong, while still managing to stay curious about what might be going on beneath their thinking.
Case in point, this line from a recent Wall Street Journal piece that included a comment on TikTok:
“Why is American Eagle using Sydney Sweeney to attract the male gaze when she’s wearing jeans for WOMEN?” one TikTok user said in a post reacting to the campaign. “We aren’t going to buy jeans because they zoomed in on her chest.”
The anonymous commenter is doing two things at once: raising a sharp question, and revealing a few baked-in assumptions that are worth unpacking. To do so, we’ll need a better lens than just ‘well I disagree.’ So here’s our working syllabus for the week:
Let’s begin with the first part of our commenter’s question.
Why might American Eagle be using Sydney Sweeney to attract the male gaze when she’s wearing jeans for women?
If that question strikes you as redundant with an obvious answer, you're half right. But don’t stop there. Obvious doesn’t always mean complete.
The ‘no duh’ response is because it sells. The ad drove millions in earned media for a brand most people hadn’t thought about since high school. Sure, the outrage was loud, but as research by Berger and his colleagues have shown, even negative buzz can lift sales when it boosts awareness. And American Eagle, let’s be honest, could use the added oxygen right about now.
The even more obvious answer is because the marketing team thought it would work. Sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss—cue the Kylie Jenner’s Pepsi fiasco. But again, we’re not here to stay at surface level, are we?
The deeper, better question is the one the commenter is implicitly asking: why do marketing execs believe appealing to the male gaze helps sell women’s jeans? That decision alone is worth a PhD, but let’s begin by getting a basic grasp of how our Monkey OS operates.
Let’s start by acknowledging that sexual imagery isn’t actually as powerful a purchase trigger as most assume. Insofar as the commenter argues against sexualization in general, they have a point. As Lindstrom notes in Buyology, it often backfires through a phenomenon called vampirization, where the attention goes to the skin, not the brand. And when it does work, it’s not because of what’s shown, it’s because of what it all signals.
Think in terms of status, confidence, aspiration and identity instead of sexual attraction, and you’re getting the picture behind the picture.
Which brings us to the an implied premise behind the comment that the ad should have catered to the female gaze instead in order to sell to women. But people don’t buy things simply to be aroused. They buy things that help them become something more desirable for the gaze that matters to them. Try swapping Sydney for Timothée Chalamet and you’ll see what I mean.
And this part of our anonymous muse’s comment leaves out another variable that is inconvenient for their argument. Sexual attraction is wildly inconsistent. Plenty of women are drawn to Sydney Sweeney just like plenty of men aren’t. Sexual preference doesn’t sort cleanly across gender lines or ad demographics, and we shouldn’t make hasty verdicts on who is chasing whose gaze.
So, it seems American Eagle is making a few bets here, which we could summarize as follows:
Sydney Sweeney will be found attractive by those who see the ad (perhaps first and foremost by men, sure)
Most of the audience will themselves want to be considered attractive (perhaps some of them even by the men who are now gazing at Sydney)
Her wearing the jeans will halo its way onto the brand—subtly implying that we, too, might be found attractive if only we wore the same pair.
And so, the jeans sell.
n short, American Eagle believes they’ve found a validated sexual signal (Sydney = attractive), that their audience wants to mirror or harness that signal (me = attractive), and that putting the two together might spark some purchase magic.
You could even argue the formula doesn’t work in spite of the male gaze, but because of it.
From here, it also becomes clear why this logic doesn’t land with everyone and why we are seeing backlash that isn’t limited to the “UGH, MEN” category which is worth a post of its own. If you reject the initial signal (Sydney ≠ attractive), or you’re immune to the implied transference (wear jeans → become Sydney → become desirable) whether because you hate the patriarchy or simply don’t buy the premise, you won’t be swayed either way.
Why might have American Eagle ‘zoomed in’ on what they zoomed in on, and why should they expect it to work?
In the next part of her comment, our anonymous muse offers this:
“We aren’t going to buy jeans because they zoomed in on her chest.”
I tell my students that one of the best ways I’ve learned to stay sane on the internet, having surfed it since it was invented, like any self-respecting millennial, is by silently adding three words to statements like this: “I think that.”
Yes, I’m sure you think that. But you might be wrong.
To see why, we’ll need to borrow a bit from Robert Wright and Carole Hooven, specifically, their work on evolutionary biology and, more pointedly, male biology.
For many men, the female breast is a thing of wonder. That’s not a value judgment, mind you, it’s an evolutionary reality we can confirm by turning to the scientists. And before you accuse me of sexism pure and simple, you should know I’ve done my time time exploring how what humans find attractive shifts across contexts and can confirm that the brightest minds we’ve put to this task say that it depends on environment, health cues, reproductive fitness signals, and social status indicators.
You yourself might not have needed any scientist to work with 128 males to confirm in a 2011 study that in our current context, medium and large breast are considered most attractive. You might even know exactly how this effect trickles down every aspect of our society, with other studies showing how larger breasts increase tips received by waitresses.
What you might have missed is why this works the way it works. Simplifying grossly, the halo effect is again action where something perceived as good but ultimately unrelated, attaches a positive interpretation on other things.
Now that we’ve reached the truly shocking conclusion that, ceteris paribus, modern males tend to prefer larger breasts, we can move on to the real misconception at the heart of the comment.
If American Eagle’s ad works as sexual signalling, it’s not despite the zoom, it’s because of it. That specific close-up is the very mechanism of the signal. And judging by Sydney Sweeney’s own public reactions to this ad and to the previous Dr. Squatch campaign, I’m on the side of giving this women some much deserved agency by wagering that she’s both well aware of it and not entirely unwilling to play the game on her own terms.
You might like the game or how it shakes out for you, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with being found attractive under the male gaze, just as there’s nothing wrong with being tall under the female gaze. If anything, once you read Hitsch et al’s work on height and dating preferences, you might come away blaming females for forcing short kings to invent capitalism in the first place. But I digress.
Final verdict: C–
“Why is American Eagle using Sydney Sweeney to attract the male gaze when she’s wearing jeans for WOMEN?” one TikTok user asked. “We aren’t going to buy jeans because they zoomed in on her chest.”
I’ll give our anonymous commenter an A for effort here given how she valiantly engaged in a public critique of cultural marketing choices which is more than most do. Where the points get docked is here:
Assuming only the male gaze finds Sydney attractive
Misunderstanding how sexual signaling works when selling to women who want to be seen as attractive by men, or by others who think like them
Implying that the zoom-in was gratuitous rather than deliberate and precisely the point
Showing no curiosity about evolutionary biology or consumer psychology, leading to (potentially performative) outrage over second-order effects that are fully predictable from our Monkey OS settings with a bit of reading
Now, none of this means we have to like what we’re seeing or how commercial systems exploit our biology. Had the comment been framed as critique despite understanding, rather than instead of it, I’d have happily bumped the grade to an A.
We don’t have to accept what we understand, but we should, at the very least, try to understand what we don’t accept.
And whatever you think of the ad, good on Sydney for cashing that check.
A book to read
Sex sells, but not the way you think. Lindstrom breaks down how subconscious signals drive consumer behaviour, and why the most effective ads suggest instead of show. Essential reading for decoding what’s really going on in that American Eagle campaign.
A thing to do
Try to understand a thing before you decide not to accept it
Whether it’s the male gaze, evolutionary psychology, or why zooming in on Sydney’s chest might actually move product, pause before the outrage. You don’t have to like it, but you should at least understand the mechanics before tearing them down. This way your critique hits as hard as it deserves to.
A thought to have
Sexual signaling isn’t always about sex
It’s about identity, aspiration, and what we think others see when they look at us. The ad’s not saying “you are Sydney.” It’s saying “you might feel like her”, or be seen like her, if you buy the jeans. That’s the real play.
A product to love
Jeans
Invented in 1873 for gold miners. Now worn to signal status, style, and sex appeal. Not bad for riveted cotton.
Recent writings on Forbes and beyond
Latest: We Have Six Months Until AI Breaks Reality, This Tool May Buy Us Time (Forbes)
Branding Is Leadership: What Modern CEOs Must Understand About Global Brands (Forbes)
Luxury Real Estate Isn’t Slowing Down, It’s Scaling Up (Forbes)
Why Your Neighbor’s New Car Feels Like a Personal Attack (Psychology Today)
Why This AI Entrepreneur Paid Six Figures For A Lunch With Benioff (Forbes)
The Power of "No": How Rejection Builds a Life Worth Having (Psychology Today)
What’s Holding Back Sustainable Business? The Challenges That Matter Most (Forbes)
What’s Next For Beverages In 2025? CEOs Predict The Path Forward (Forbes)
Why This Nasdaq Listed CEO Changed His Mind About AI, And What It Took (Forbes)
From Serendipity To Startup: Meeting Venus Williams And Other Lucky Strikes (Forbes)
What’s Next In Philanthropy? Decentralized Models And Smarter Giving (Forbes)
Declining Birthrates Are Breaking The Economy. Can We Fix It In Time? (Forbes)
In Defense of Intuition: Why Gut Feelings Deserve Respect (Psychology Today)
Your Brain Hates Your Cubicle—Here’s How to Thrive Anyway (Psychology Today)
Arvind Jain: The Humble Builder Behind Glean And The Future Of Agentic AI (Forbes)
The Outsider Advantage: How Naïveté Fuels Billion-Dollar Startups (Forbes)
Never Make a Bad Choice Again by Embracing Self-Nudging (Psychology Today)
The Psychology Of Better Choices: How Startups Are Rewiring Our Habits (Forbes)
Staying Curious Is the Most Dangerous Thing You Can Do (Psychology Today)
After Arkansas: The Future Of FEMA And U.S. Disaster Relief (Forbes)
Ryan Gellert on Building a Future Where Sustainability Is Not Optional (Forbes)
Why Struggling (the Right Way) Helps You Learn (Psychology Today)
Want to Make Better Decisions? Copy the Slime Mold (Psychology Today)
Your Brain Was Built to Forget—Make It Work For You (Psychology Today)
Where and how to get involved this August
AI for MBAs is official in review now. I’m looking for bold research subjects who are willing to read a chapter, like The MBA’s History of AI and the AI Family Tree, or the Ironclad Business Model. 6000-8000 words for you, a few comments and thoughts for me. Email to get involved!
I am currently conducting a study on range and how it impacts people’s career trajectories. Ten questions and a name will get you on the hall of fame as we pump up the n on the study. Link below - thanks for considering it!
You’ve reached the end - thanks for scrolling all the way down.
Curiosity is best when enjoyed in great company.
Refer this issue and grab a chance to get a tester package of Neuro blessed by the founders themselves (randomly selected from all referrals made). I’m connecting with the duo for a longer chat, recorded for the upcoming Curiosity Code podcast, and will be grilling them on their curious path to setting up the company. If you want your question included in the mix, hit me up via the Substack chat or email.
Interesting take, Alexander... but isn't the main controversy with this ad around the "good jeans" narrative being a take on "good genes" and the implication that she has genetic superiority? Would love to read your analysis and acknowledgment of that disturbing component of this ad campaign.