Chris Williamson and evolutionary psychology researcher William Costello analyze the intense backlash against Sydney Sweeney’s advertisement for Novig, a sports betting prediction market, using evolutionary psychology to explain why the criticism came predominantly from women and why the ad triggered such a disproportionate response compared to the gambling harms it promotes.
The Ad and the Immediate Backlash
Sweeney appeared in a provocative Novig ad wearing sports attire, emphasizing her body while promoting a sports-only betting platform; she is not merely an ambassador but a part-owner with financial upside.
Critics, including an Irish radio presenter, claimed the 40-second ad “set women’s sports back 40 years,” arguing it undermined female athletes’ progress by catering to the male gaze.
Costello and Williamson note the claim is absurd on its face — Katie Taylor selling out Croke Park is not undone by cleavage — and reflects a remarkably low opinion of women’s sports’ resilience.
The backlash revealed a striking double standard: female athletes (Ronda Rousey, Serena Williams, Megan Rapinoe, the USWNT) have posed nude for ESPN’s Body Issue with celebration, yet Sweeney doing so for a gambling app is framed as betrayal.
Critics also suddenly adopted puritanical, sex-negative rhetoric despite years of supporting sex work, OnlyFans, and sexual liberation — but only when the woman is “coded” as insufficiently woke or right-adjacent.
The “my body, my choice” framework was abandoned when Sweeney exercised agency to monetize her own sexuality on her own terms, exposing that empowerment rhetoric often requires ideological conformity.
Three Evolutionary Psychology Frameworks for the Hatred
Costello identifies three interlocking concepts: intrasexual competition, sexual economics theory, and female coalitional psychology.
Intrasexual competition: women compete for mates by embodying male preferences (youth, beauty); Sweeney does this aggressively and openly, violating the norm of covert, indirect competition.
Women’s ancestral reliance on social survival selected for indirect aggression — feigning concern, derogating rivals’ mate value (looks, sexual morality), and coordinating condemnation — rather than overt confrontation.
Sweeney’s “this is for the boys” signaling prioritizes male attention over female group cohesion, triggering a coordinated shunning response: she is cast as disloyal to the sisterhood, a “bad girl” who offers short-term mating value but threatens long-term loyalty.
Sexual economics theory: women function as a cartel maintaining the “price” of sex (commitment); Sweeney undercuts the cartel by offering what men want (sexual display) without demanding the female-preferred price (commitment, ideological alignment).
If one woman lowers the cost, others must follow or lose leverage; shaming enforces price discipline — analogous to “simp-shaming” among men, where giving commitment without sex lowers the market value of male investment.
Female coalitional psychology: women evolved preferences for egalitarianism, consensus, and shared credit; they downplay achievements (“I got lucky”), exchange compliments followed by self-deprecation, and bond through mutual vulnerability disclosure.
Sweeney violates these norms: she does not perform humility, does not signal shared vulnerability, and does not perform the “girl’s girl” rituals that maintain group cohesion — making her a norm violator who must be punished.
Sydney Sweeney vs. Sabrina Carpenter: Who the Performance Is For
The contrast with Sabrina Carpenter crystallizes the dynamic: both sexualize themselves, but Carpenter signals “for the girls” (teen-girl coding, songs about man-children, female-gaze aesthetics), while Sweeney signals “for the boys.”
A viral quote-tweet captured the distinction: “Sabrina does it because she feels good about herself… not encompassing our gender in hypersexualization for male pleasure.”
The criticism explicitly frames the difference as tribal: one performs for the in-group, the other for the out-group; the latter is treated as a collective political resource being misallocated.
Costello notes this mirrors “heteropessimism” — heterosexual male sexuality is morally suspect, while female or queer sexuality is celebrated — and “gamma bias”: men’s positive actions are degendered, negative actions gendered; women’s negative actions are degendered, positive actions gendered.
The “Guy’s Girl” Dynamic and Cross-Sex Friendship Threat
Research from Sarah Hill’s lab (Hannah Bradshaw) shows women distrust “guy’s girls” — women with predominantly male friends — because they doubt the motives and perceive mating-relevant threat.
Cross-sex friendships frequently activate mating psychology: significant percentages of opposite-sex friends report sexual attraction, backup-mate dynamics, and mate-poaching via friendship infiltration.
A woman embedded in male social circles has proximity and psychological access that can threaten other women’s partners; her psychology may also align more with short-term mating, further signaling disloyalty to female coalitional interests.
Such women often derogate other women (“too much drama”) while presenting as low-maintenance, high-reward companions — a covert competitive strategy that other women detect and punish.
Sweeney’s Refusal of the Victim Narrative
Sweeney does not perform vulnerability or shared victimhood; she does not disclose embarrassment, claim past body insecurity, or frame her sexuality as reclaimed from patriarchal oppression.
Instead, she has thanked her mother for convincing her not to get a breast reduction — signaling pride in the very traits that cue male short-term mating psychology.
This absence of the “maiden-to-mother” redemption arc (I was insecure, now I’m liberated) denies other women the shared narrative that would make her success feel inclusive rather than threatening.
The “maiden/mother/matriarch” life-history arc (Louise Perry) predicts different derogation by age: younger women attack promiscuity; older women, having lost youth/beauty leverage, pivot to wisdom/moral authority and attack competence (“she’s a bimbo”).
Body Type Preferences, Unearned Traits, and Sex Differences in Envy
Breast preferences are mixed on size but consistent on firmness/tosis (youth/reproductive value cues); short-term-oriented men prefer larger breasts, which women detect and derogate as signaling short-term mating orientation.
Sweeney’s “effortless” presentation — natural large breasts, minimal visible gym work — intensifies envy because it highlights unearned genetic advantage; women’s beauty is on a tighter biological clock and harder to cultivate than men’s muscularity.
Men’s attractiveness (formidability, muscularity) is largely attainable through effort; a 40-year-old man can transform in two years — no male equivalent of “the wall.”
This asymmetry makes female envy more existential: a beautiful woman signals irreversible mate-value decline for observers, while a fit man signals an achievable goal.
If a male athlete or “hot” female athlete (e.g., Megan Rapinoe) did the same ad, pushback would persist but shift from “betrayal of womanhood” to “sexualization of sports” — the tribal signaling remains the core offense.
The Overlooked Harm: Predatory Gambling Targeting Young Men
The Novig ad promotes sports betting to young men — the demographic most vulnerable to gambling addiction; research from the American Institute for Boys and Men shows legalization correlates with spikes in young male bankruptcy, debt, suicidality (30% feel suicidal, 13% attempt), and relationship destruction.
Evolutionary logic: young men with low resource prospects are drawn to high-variance “big win” strategies to boost mate value; gambling apps exploit this evolved psychology.
The media and feminist commentators ignored this harm entirely, fixating on a perceived slight to women’s sports — illustrating gamma bias: harms to women are highlighted, harms to men ignored even when objectively larger.
A poll of Williamson’s largely male, “red-pill” audience unanimously judged killing a teenage girl worse than a teenage boy — demonstrating deep-seated protective bias toward women across ideological lines.
The sophisticated collective-action response would have targeted the predatory gambling model; instead, the coalition policed a woman’s body, missing the unimpeachable moral high ground.
Hypocrisy, Media Incentives, and the “Sydney Sweeney Distraction” Pattern
Calling out hypocrisy (pro-sex-work feminists slut-shaming Sweeney; anti-degeneracy conservatives partnering with gambling apps) is rhetorically satisfying but rarely changes behavior — it often triggers tribal defense rather than reflection.
Costello argues the culture war reduces to domain-specific trade-offs, not global “who has it worse” Olympics; gamma bias and heteropessimism are robust cross-domain patterns, but sweeping statements obscure nuance.
Williamson half-jokingly notes a pattern: Sweeney’s viral moments (American Eagle ad, Novig ad) coincide with major geopolitical stories (Epstein files, debt-ceiling bill, Iran war-crimes allegations, AI safety warnings) — suggesting she functions as a manufactured distraction.
Where to Find William Costello
Costello is most active on X (Twitter), where he articulates these ideas in longer threads; he has left Bluesky per Williamson’s recommendation.
