Episode 983: The Naked Truth—About the Left and Right
Air Date: September 23, 2026 | Host: Bob Metz
Just Right — broadcasting on WBCQ and Channel 292 shortwave
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this program are those of the participants.
Clip (Desperate Housewives S07E02):
Who is it?
Maxine.
Oh! Oh, ah, hang on a second! I was just wrapping up my first session.
I know. I was watching.
And what'd you think?
Sit down, honey. It's time I gave you a few pointers. And let's not forget the duster.
Okay, okay, I get it. Oh, we eat off that table.
I want to. I just can't stop thinking about all those men out there watching me.
You, my darling, have all the power here.
Bob Metz:
Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026. I'm Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that's not right wing. It's just right.
Well, actress Sydney Sweeney certainly demonstrated that she had all the power with her latest very political, yet non-political, advertisement for an online sports betting company called Novig, which virtually no one had ever heard of before. And I'm thankful she did this because given the rather depressing nature of the discussion of our past few broadcasts and the continuing sad state of the world today, I was getting desperate for an opportunity to lighten things up a bit. And then lo and behold, my prayers were answered by Sydney Sweeney's ability to distract the entire globe from its perceived existential threats. It has become an outright comedy of the absurd.
The irony of the left's reaction to Sydney Sweeney, while laughably entertaining, is that it offers us a clear insight into the fundamental motivations behind all of the lunacy. The last time the left went crazy about Sweeney was after she appeared in an American Eagle commercial based on the slogan that Sydney Sweeney has great genes.
An ad in which she's seen wearing a pair of blue jeans, though provocatively posed. Associating the word jeans, J-E-A-N-S, with the word genes, G-E-N-E-S, the left concluded that this non sequitur was all that was necessary to publicly label Sweeney a white supremacist Nazi and much, much more. Now why would they do such a despicable thing? Well, Sweeney herself has given us the opportunity to answer that question for ourselves.
This time round, she exercised the power that she knew these leftists had given her on a silver platter and used it against them while making a small fortune in the process. She stripped off her great genes, thus revealing the naked truth about the left on a scale never before experienced. And while these lefty reactions to Sweeney can make for great political comedy, the sad reality is that at the base of these reactions lies a deeply sinister and concerning ideological threat to Western culture, along with a few uncomfortable truths about human behavior and sexuality itself. Needless to add, the right too had some humorously contradictory reactions to the Sweeney crisis.
So let's take this opportunity to discuss some serious social issues in a more lighthearted way, shall we? Beginning right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform, and visit us at justrightmedia.org where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show. Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.
Now comparing left and right in the context of the controversy surrounding Sydney Sweeney's nude advertising campaign allows us to see this divide in a way uncluttered by the usual left and right issues, you know, like taxation, economics, foreign policy, health care, wars, social security, etc., etc.
I don't know how many of you might have caught our first Sydney Sweeney broadcast of August 6th, 2025, entitled Gene Therapy Against the Woke Virus. But to set the backdrop of this controversy, here's part of our blog post related to that show, and I quote:
Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle blue jeans ad has proven to be a gene therapy against the woke virus, but is it a cure? The literally insane reactions to the ad by a myriad of women saying that their objecting to eugenics was both laughable and tragic. Calling upon vague and contrived associations with Hitler, their objections were justified using terms and arguments like the following.
Sweeney has great genes. She's a Nazi. She's a fascist. She's a racist. She owns a German Shepherd as her dog whistle. Her initials spell SS. She has white skin, blue eyes, and blue jeans. American Eagle is promoting fascist propaganda, Christian nationalism, and white supremacy. Sweeney is Hitler's wet dream. Cotton jeans are racist. American Eagle is reviving the Third Reich. Sweeney represents white supremacist patriarchy, capitalistic beauty standards. The ads portray fascist aesthetics. The script is bigoted BS, and much, much more.
These claims are so stupid and outrageous that they've drawn the attention of millions who are utterly amazed that such irrationality is possible in so many people all spouting the same script at the same time. While much of the reaction can be attributed to jealousy and envy, the consistent and repetitive reference to eugenics is telling. It both reveals projection on their part, as well as an attempt to hide the left's exclusive claim to pushing eugenics throughout history. To say nothing of the fact that fascism itself is an ideology of the left. End quote.
So that was just a little over a year ago. And as I contended earlier, this time round, Sweeney exercised the power that she knew these leftists had given her and is using it against them while making a small fortune in the process. And how is she doing that?
Well, to help set up that narrative, on this side of her upcoming bumper, a new voice to our show, YouTuber Erin Molan, who on her September 15 show on the Sydney Sweeney ad asked, do you see what I see? And on the return side, Michael Knowles struggles with his own conservative dilemma, endorsing Sweeney's nude ad campaign while trying to reconcile that support with his conservative call for modesty and establishing limits around gambling.
Clip (The Erin Molan Show, September 15 2026):
Erin Molan: So actress Sydney Sweeney has done an ad for a company that she owns a stake in. This is a sports betting company. And the kind of premise of it is you can't bet on anything other than sport.
Now this is a little bit of the ad, and if you're someone who is critical of what I wear on this show, and if you're someone who sends me emails and says that I show too much skin on this show, you might want to look away now.
Sydney Sweeney: Go. Thinking of sports. Prove it. No big ads. Just sports. So they wanted to show just sports. You can trade this sport. And this sport. How about this? This sport too. Or this? Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports.
Erin Molan: Now cue outrage. Mostly from young women.
Speaker 1: Just absolute utter disbelief. Incredibly disappointing, like how far you can put women's sports backwards in the space of a 40-second commercial. The ad that we saw Sydney Sweeney do is very damaging, especially for young females.
Speaker 2: We want to be valued for what we can do, not what we look like.
Speaker 3: When an athlete does it, it's a whole different thing because you're looking at this athlete and their athletic body and all the different muscles and stuff. Ronda Rousey, you saw what her arms look like. You know, that's an athlete. You're an actor who's took a gig to make some dough. I'm not mad at you, but I don't think you can put yourself on equal footing with when the female athletes do.
Erin Molan: Now, anyone can have an opinion on anything. It's what I do every single day. The issue I have with this is the way in which it's being framed. And it's completely dishonest. So all of these female athletes and other types are jumping online and saying, how dare you, Sydney? This is women in sport, and then showing themselves being women in sports, so doing training, competing, amazing physical feats. And that's all good and well.
The issue is Sydney Sweeney never tried to portray herself as a woman in sport. She's an actress who has a stake in a betting company, who's done an ad in the kind of way that Sydney Sweeney normally would, which is provocative and showing her insane rig. But it's dishonest to try and frame it as though she is trying to demand the world see her as I am woman in sport, hear me roar.
No. It's actually embarrassing. So much of it is embarrassing. Oh, and also, how many female athletes, like at the top of their game, have posed completely starkers on the front cover of magazines? Serena Williams, Caroline Wozniacki, Megan Rapinoe. I mean, she's like, give her a leftist cause, and she is right out the front with a pitchfork. So sorry, if you're going to go for Sydney, go for them. Or it's okay for them. I mean, make it make sense.
And don't any of you ever comment again and say that I am not appropriately dressed. Bye.
Clip (The Michael Knowles Show, September 16 2026):
Michael Knowles: I spent a week trying not to cover the Sydney Sweeney ad. Because I got enough sins I gotta confess, I didn't feel like I needed to cover the Sydney Sweeney nude, not totally nude, but mostly nude, gambling ad. I said, you know what? I'm just gonna let this go. People can talk about it, but people are still talking about it.
And the left in particular is really upset. The feminists, the defenders of women's sports, so ironic, these libs who have spent the last six years destroying women's sports by letting hulking dudes into them. All of a sudden they say, no, no, no. The real threat to women's sports is how hot Sydney Sweeney is.
So the criticism of this ad, the chief criticism is that Sydney Sweeney is sexualizing women in sports. Once again, the left is demonstrating that they don't understand what women's sports are. It is not the kind of sport that includes men.
So right off the bat, we exclude all the trans stuff we've heard for the last six years. At a deeper level, what is women's sports? Women's sports are about women's bodies. And women's bodies are hot.
They're good looking, they're attractive. The fact is, men and women's bodies are different. And sports is about the body. And men's bodies are not hot, but women's bodies are hot.
That's one of the differences. Men are attracted to women in ways that women are not primarily attracted to men. The way that women approach attraction and men and sex is fundamentally different from the way that men approach attraction and sex and relationships. For men, we are much more visual. We are much more visibly stimulated and attracted by the physical form of the woman.
The woman is attracted to other things. This is why like short fat ugly guys can get really good-looking women if they're funny, if they're clever, if they're rich, and it doesn't work the other way. We're just different.
Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, vive la différence. So that's the left-wing error. But what about the right? The right, I think, is raising a fair objection, which is hold on a second here. Are we really now defending nudity and gambling as conservative virtues?
This is crazy. Thirty years ago, it would have been the conservatives. It would have been the church moms, not the feminists, but the church moms and the stodgy guys in their three-piece suits and ties who are complaining about the Sydney Sweeney ad. Now we're embracing that?
And the answer is, yeah, we are, because, relatively speaking, the mostly nude gambling Sydney Sweeney ad is relatively conservative. Because we are living in a culture that is so starved for truth that the fact that a company is putting a good looking woman in an advertisement is refreshing. It's refreshing, not just because it appeals to the prurient interest or something.
It's refreshing because it acknowledges the truth. And for the last 10 years, we have been told that we have to deny the truth. We have to pretend that big fat ugly chicks are just as attractive or more attractive as thin good-looking chicks. We've been told that we have to pretend that men are women. We've been told that we have to pretend that men are not attracted to women.
We've been told all of these lies. And so a little return to what would essentially be 90s liberalism is actually refreshing. And I think that the reason that people are celebrating the advertisement actually does go deeper than just how hot Sydney Sweeney is. It does. Even if you just had a conservative close his eyes and you told him about the ad, he would, whether he wanted to admit it or not.
He would be happy about that. Because it is a corrective to this crazy left-wing culture. Now, obviously, we need to go further. We need to reestablish modesty, we need to reestablish some norms and limits, I think, around gambling, gambling which has proliferated, totally exploded in the last five or so years.
We need to do all of that. But actually the first step to doing that, the first step to getting back to some modesty in advertising is Sydney Sweeney being kind of immodest. I know that's weird, but let's say the ideal kind of advertising is that you're not advertising products of vice, but you're advertising nice things like I don't know, ironing boards or something. I don't know, whatever you're advertising, cigars, you're advertising rawhide, fight, whatever it is that you're advertising. Well, in order to get there, we need to at least reestablish what attractive is.
And in order to do that, sometimes you need a shock to the system. So instead of having some like 400 pound they/them pansexual with a beard wearing a mini skirt, which is what our advertising has been for 10 years, you need to go back to Sydney Sweeney.
There is a reason that the left is seething over this, there is a reason the feminists are seething over it, and so conservatives, we gotta take the dub where we can get it. And then we need to move forward.
Bob Metz:
Poor Michael Knowles. He seems to be caught up in some kind of moral dilemma, in a compromise between his supporting the quote unquote immodesty of Sydney Sweeney's ad and the modesty of some undoubtedly Christian standard he seems to be advocating.
Now, I sure hope he's not trying to create modesty prescriptions for others to have to comply with, because as with all human evaluations, one person's modesty is another's immodesty.
And I'm guessing that for Michael Knowles, no nudes is good nudes. However, this shouldn't be confused with the reasonable and objective setting of clear limits on where and when and to what extent states of dress or undress or erotic sexual expression should be in any way legally regulated. Something we'll expand on a bit later. But let's just first address the erotic dimensions of this debate, and it's interesting that almost nobody uses the term erotic in this context.
But consider the comments heard on Erin Molan's audio bite. We want to be valued for what we can do, not what we look like, says one athletic critic. Well, what the hell has that got to do with anything?
Well, then do something. Why cast moral condemnations against others who do want to be valued for what they look like and for what they're doing with it? And Whoopi Goldberg, making a case for the acceptability of admiring an athlete's body, you're looking at the body for non-sexual motives.
Well, that's kind of embarrassing, actually. So if admiring someone's body for non-sexual reasons is supposed to be the moral standard of appreciating another's physical form, then what's the motive behind this form of appreciation? And don't give me that, we appreciate the work and effort that went into building those great muscles stuff either. Because when it comes to the physiques of some of these beauty critics, they don't stand up too well in comparison to these athletic bodies they pretend to admire either. Yet they aren't complaining that these athletes bother them in any way.
So it's really all about sexual beauty and attraction and about the women who are threatened by it, while insisting that these traits are morally and socially unacceptable. Methinks they doth protest too much and about the wrong things. These women are suffering from a serious self-esteem problem, and they project their own perceived shortcomings on the world around them. Worse, they have a thought process problem, and it's a problem particularly common in the left.
The best way to describe it is associative thinking, a very lazy form of thinking in stark contrast to the effort of critical thinking. The issue is being framed dishonestly, says Erin Molan in reacting to this version of the primacy of consciousness. You could go further and say that in fact there is no issue other than the mental state of those shouting the loudest. For example, take the ridiculous assertion that we shouldn't give Sweeney the power to determine and define the athleticism of female athletes. Not only was this never done or even inferred, but it was so blatantly obvious to anyone who ever saw or heard the ad that for these lefties to believe that no one would notice is a phenomenon in and of itself. Repeatedly and without any meaningful differences, these various critics of Sweeney have simply reacted to a single word, sports, and then associated that word with women's sports when the word women was never mentioned even once in the context of the original Novig ad.
But here's the point. The word woman did not have to be said or written because it popped into their minds immediately when they visually saw Sweeney looking and acting like a woman. Something they couldn't say out loud, given their gender confusions.
Voila! Sports plus woman equals women's sports. Therefore, Sweeney was clearly guilty of putting down women's sports since those two concepts, sports and woman, could be irrationally associated with their woke hatred of all things good.
And just as they associated the two different words, genes, J-E-A-N-S with genes, G-E-N-E-S, to conclude that Sweeney was advocating a white supremacist patriarchy with capitalistic beauty standards, the same associative process was hard at work there. In fact, when I re-looked at that phrase, what screamed out loud to me was the projection of leftist values that it represents. I mean, consider each word and phrase to which they ostensibly object, but which are really self-projections. For example, when they say white supremacist, they're actually telling us that they are anti-white racist bigots. Or when they complain about patriarchy, they're telling us that they support a feminist matriarchy. And when they criticize the word capitalistic, they're telling us that they prefer to be communistic. And of course, when they object to beauty standards, they're telling us that they support ugly standards. So if we were to turn their own phrase around on them, it would read, quote, anti-white racist bigot feminists advocating communistic standards of ugliness, end quote.
Given their objection to capitalistic beauty standards, this might be a perfect time to quote the author of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand herself, who answers the question, can beauty be defined objectively?
To which she responds, yes. Quote, beauty is a sense of harmony, whether it's an image, a human face, a body, or a sunset. Take the object which you call beautiful as a unit, and ask yourself, what parts is it made up of?
What are its constituent elements, and are they all harmonious? If they are, the result is beautiful. If there are contradictions and clashes, the result is marred or positively ugly. End quote. Now, of course, definitions alone, even when perfectly accurate, cannot describe the experience of appreciating beauty, which, by the way, is something that always applies to all this nonsense about artificial intelligence. So in the broadest sense, if beauty represents harmony and non-contradiction, then ugliness resembles chaos and disorder, a contrast that depicts the political polarity between left and right in terms of aesthetics, the fifth branch of philosophy.
But here's what I find remarkable about what these women of the left are doing. They are being utterly oblivious to the universal criticisms being directed against them, pointing out that nothing they're complaining about has anything to do with Sydney Sweeney or women's sports.
It's a complete and utter dysfunctional fantasy. And apparently, everyone looking can see it clearly. Most of the critical reactions to the feminists were able to zero in on the exact same symptoms of their delusional narratives. As did, for example, Sydney Watson, not to be confused with Sydney Sweeney, on this side of our upcoming bumper, and as did Trish Regan on the return side. These commentaries each being expressed on their September 16 podcasts.
Clip (Sydney Watson, September 16 2026):
Sydney Watson: Hi, my name is Sydney. Welcome back to Hell. Everybody.
Now, I'm not gonna lie, I am extremely confused by all of this new Sydney Sweeney drama. I think most of it is pretty stupid. But all of this boils down to both sides of the political coin being mad at Sydney Sweeney after she did a promotional campaign for a US sports betting platform called Novig.
And according to the company's CEO, Sweeney actually drove the visuals for this campaign, and I'm just not surprised to hear that at all. Girl has some skin in the game. Literally. Now I'm sure at this point that a good majority of you have probably seen the video in question. But basically, there's a video and a series of photos associated with this campaign, showing Sydney Sweeney mostly nude and then using footballs and basketballs and whatever to cover herself while she mock plays sports. Or mock talks about sports.
She repeats the word sports over and over, which apparently upset people, and pitches Novig as a just sports platform, so no betting on politics or war or deaths.
Sydney Sweeney: Sports. Sports. Sport. Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports. Sports.
Sydney Watson: One line that got quoted quite a lot is her sitting on a basketball hoop saying they wanted to show just sports. And then later she says, you can't trade this, I just look good here. Which I get it, men, I understand.
Sydney Sweeney: You can't trade this. I just look good here.
Sydney Watson: This, unsurprisingly, went extremely viral for two very large reasons.
Once again, I won't lie, all of this drama just feels very manufactured and pretty dumb. And honestly, it's sort of giving me some flashbacks to the same manufactured dumb behavior that took place with relation to her last major advertising campaign with American Eagle.
If you need a recap of that, Sydney Sweeney did an ad in 2025 for American Eagle, and the tagline of that whole thing was Sydney Sweeney has great genes. Obviously referring to the literal jeans on her body, but also her hot person genes as a hot person. This apparently amounted to a Nazi dog whistle, and Sydney Sweeney, or SS, as she was known during this time, is a covert Nazi herself. The more you know.
The left are just not sending their best.
Speaker 4: I will be the friend that's too woke because the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ads are weird. Like fascist weird, like Nazi propaganda weird.
Sydney Watson: But this time around, it seems like Sydney Sweeney has upset people on both the left and the right. From what I can tell from what I've seen from certain groups of conservatives and right wingers, Sydney Sweeney's ad is both selling sin and nudity and what have you, and sports betting, which is generally terrible for the population and she shouldn't be doing it.
Those on the left, on the other hand, have taken a few different positions. The first being that Sydney Sweeney is setting women back and feminism back by decades. I think you'll find that you guys have done this quite successfully to yourselves. When you supported a child murderer recently, maybe that is something we're actually not going to discuss because there's a lot to unpack. And honestly, the topic makes me really, really, really sad.
And the second reason is that she's embarrassing female athletes somehow. Even though what she's doing has absolutely nothing to do with actually playing sports. At this point, a bunch of female athletes, including former Olympians and other current competitors, have turned up to say that this whole campaign is hypersexualizing, it's hypersexualizing women's sports, rather than celebrating what the athletes actually do. Guys, the ad is for betting. It has nothing to do with playing women's sports. It's also targeted at men. The creatures with the penises, who I'm pretty sure don't watch your sports anyway. I don't want to keep harping on it, because I feel like it's obvious, but do they not understand that she's promoting sports betting? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! Then we had an Australian Olympic swimmer who said that the ad was a kick in the face to every woman who has dedicated her life to perfecting her craft. She also asked how we're still monetizing women's bodies in the year of our lord 2026. I sort of feel like everybody losing their minds here would be way less upset if it was a fat woman in this ad.
They just seem way, way less upset when fat women are doing any kind of advertising like this. Are we really still doing this? I feel like I'm going absolutely insane. I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly find a lot of this kind of outrage a little bit hard to stomach, to wrap my head around and to get behind because these are the exact same women who also either don't say a peep about men playing in women's sports, or they aggressively support men playing in women's sports. And when other women say, hey, I don't like this, this shouldn't be happening, they attack those women. So like these are the same people who make the argument that being a woman is a feeling and anybody can be a woman. And then the only time that they remember that biological reality actually exists is during situations like this. So when you're attacking Sydney Sweeney, that's the only time that you know what a woman is.
Huh. Hilariously as well, people have been sharing a bunch of other images of other athletes who've done their own naked photo shoots for outlets in the past. You see, when Lizzo does it, that is fighting unfair beauty standards and fighting fat phobia. But when a conventionally good-looking, very breastly talented woman does it, it's degrading. Unless that woman has an OnlyFans, then it is not degrading and she's a business entrepreneur.
I just love the consistency. The implication here, of course, is that these athletes themselves have posed nude in the past to promote whatever it was that they were promoting about their sport. And apparently, on top of all of this, Sydney Sweeney also lost around 200,000 Instagram followers because of reasons that are inexplicable to me.
I don't really share the concern here that other right-wingers have expressed around what's taking place because I just don't think it's that big of a deal. As you all know, as I've said a million times, I love seeing hot people in marketing and in entertainment and in movies and shows and whatever, because I think it signals, at least in some small part, that we're returning to a period of normalcy. And so, is there a moral conversation to be had around big breasted women making sports betting commercials? Absolutely. Am I specifically the person to be making that moral argument? Probably not.
What's sort of ironic is that posing and doing nudes and sort of kind of photography and whatnot isn't remotely uncommon. And every time other people have done this sort of thing, like other celebrities like Miley Cyrus or Sabrina Carpenter, whoever, everybody just cheers. They're like, yeah, you're so good with your nudity. But it really feels like the only time these people have this sort of positive reaction is when the person doing the nudity or the woman in question isn't Sydney Sweeney.
And I think a really, really big part of that is because Sydney Sweeney, unlike Sabrina Carpenter and these other women, hasn't denigrated men. That's it. That is the difference. That's the entire difference. You make the argument that you're posing nude for yourself for some female empowerment thing, and they're all about it. Good job you.
But you say that you're doing this because you want male approval and you are the worst kind of person in the world. Into the gulag you go. But in the end, if this is what people are choosing to complain about, and this is what's dominating their newsfeeds and their interests, then I think it's probably fair to say that Sydney Sweeney is once again over the target.
Clip (The Trish Regan Show, September 16 2026):
Speaker from The View: We shouldn't give Sydney Sweeney, who I think has kind of figured out the formula of creating outrage and monetizing that through the ads, which again, more power to her, but we shouldn't give her the power to determine and define the athleticism and ability of female athletes.
Trish Regan: I'm sorry, it's giving me pause because of its stupidity. So somehow this woman on The View thinks that Sydney is defining what a woman athlete's body should be. Excuse me, like how do we make that giant leap of nonsense? I mean, come on. Come on, come on, come on, come on. The equipment, right? That's part of the visual. She's not saying she is a hockey player. Okay. And I get it.
Like, ladies, you can dislike it, you can call it crude, you can say it's using sex to promote gambling, and I mean, at least that would be a coherent argument. Like, I get that one, and we can have that debate. But the whole claim that The View's making that Sweeney is attempting to define what a female athlete's body should look like. I mean, I don't even know what to say to that because it makes absolutely positively no sense at all.
Sweeney is not defining the female athletic body. No, no, no, no, no. She's displaying her own body, right? And she's an actress, she's not an athlete, and I'm sure she'd be the first to tell you. I thought women were now allowed to celebrate their own bodies, right? Wasn't that like something that they were all about? Haven't we spent years hearing all about body positivity and embrace your body and celebrate your femininity and refuse to conform to somebody else's standards?
But apparently that freedom has its limits. Because if you happen to be beautiful, if you happen to be, oh, how shall we say, naturally built, like a Sydney Sweeney, then celebrating your body suddenly becomes an act of aggression against every other woman out there.
They're jealous of Sydney Sweeney. And Sydney Sweeney's body somehow is a threat. They are suddenly on the attack of a woman who happens to own a company that is a sports betting company, and she's no dummy, she knows exactly how to get people to remember that she is an owner in the sports betting company. But taking it all off, apparently it was her idea, like I said, new meaning to skin in the game. Alright? Her skin. She's clearly in the game. Sports. And she's got actual like skin in the game, like, you know, money.
They really don't like pretty women. They really just don't like them, do they?
Bob Metz:
You are listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. And you know, we shouldn't be surprised that the left views beauty as an act of aggression. After all, to the left, words are violence. So it only follows that beauty must be violence.
I'll have more to say on this point later in the show. But before moving on, let's address the side issues of the apparent gambling dilemma and of establishing norms and limits in areas of modesty and sexuality. First, if I'm to accept that gambling addiction is a major problem, then no matter how I look at that, it seems to me that the problem, quote unquote, is not gambling per se, but addiction. And we ran into the same argument back when we took a look at concerns about porn addiction on our July 16, 2025 broadcast entitled The Erotic Side of Human Sexuality. And during that broadcast, we quoted Pornhub's Solomon Friedman on the issue of porn addiction as reported in Postmedia. And it's worth repeating any time we hear about addictions being blamed on a specific object or activity. And I quote again as we did then.
It goes like this. Let's say you love fly fishing. So you go fly fishing on the weekends. You spend a little bit of money on your fly fishing equipment, and that's a healthy hobby. But if you go fly fishing all day, every day, and spend all of your income on it, stop going to work, stop talking to your wife and kids, you've got a real problem and you need help, right? That's not a fly fishing addiction. That's something in your life that's interfering with your function. The same is true when it comes to porn.
End quote. And so too it is with gambling, or playing video games, or watching TV shows, or even going to sporting events.
Now, on the establishing modesty front, consent, of course, is always the operable principle. And there's a time and place for every consensual activity. Where to draw the lines and who gets to draw them is a matter of property rights and access. This is the already existing mechanism by which we can establish clear limits on where and when and to what extent states of dress or undress or erotic sexual expression can be permitted. And it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit nudity, sexual activity, and the like in public places designated for other specific purposes.
And please, women's washrooms are for biological females only, and men's washrooms for biological males only. Is that such a hard restriction to abide by? In fact, if you think about it, it's not really a restriction at all. It's a liberating establishment of borders defining which sex has sovereignty over which specific area. It's about as freedom of association as you can get.
The freedom to associate also includes the right not to associate for whatever reasons. So, having now briefly addressed these side issues to the whole Sweeney controversy, up next, on this side of the bumper, more from Trish Regan, who gets right to the heart of answering another question we raised earlier. Exactly how did Sydney Sweeney make a small fortune on the wave of negative and critical leftist reactions against her? And on the return side, UK YouTuber Jake Munro delivers a scathing and toxically masculine take on the whole Sweeney controversy by citing some very blunt truths about men and women, sexuality, standards of beauty and attraction, and most interestingly, about the left and right. But first, here's Trish Regan.
Clip (The Trish Regan Show, September 16 2026):
Trish Regan: I'll tell you, this is just like a wild double standard. Because you know, this is not about women's sports.
It's ever since American Eagle came out. Think about this. Ever since the American Eagle came out and the Great Genes controversy, you have activists that have attempted to turn Sydney Sweeney into a political symbol. You got a genes ad that suddenly became a national argument about race and eugenics and conservative politics, and Sweeney has said she's not a political person, and she rejected the motives and the labels assigned to her. Good for her. Like she's pushing back.
But I'll tell you, once the culture decides you're gone, right? Once they cancel you, and so now everything she does has to be interpreted in the worst possible way. She's beautiful, she's feminine, she understands the commercial value of her appearance, and perhaps most infuriating to her critics, she refuses to apologize for it.
Sydney Sweeney, job well done. You commanded our attention. The imagery provoked a reaction. You knew your critics would be apoplectic.
You knew they would just be spinning out of control, and the ladies on The View would have all this hate, which just helps you even more. Okay. So the controversy, if you ask me, was not an unfortunate side effect.
It was actually an important part of the distribution strategy. I mean, you think about the economics of this. Relatively new company, spending an enormous fortune purchasing conventional advertisements that most consumers would completely totally ignore. Instead, Novig creates one big commercial, provocative enough to make CNN, the New York Times, The View.
Olympic athletes. Social media users completely flip out and distribute the ad voluntarily. The commercial that like in the first two days got something like 22 million views. Unbelievable, right?
You can't buy marketing like that. Before this controversy, who knew what Novig was? I didn't. I'd never heard of the company.
Never. I mean, she isn't undermining the marketing strategy. She's actually completing it.
The critics are out, they think that they're actually punishing her, but they are actually increasing the value of her ownership stake. I mean, if you want to talk about sports betting and whether or not we should be betting on sports and blah, blah, blah, and it's an addiction. And you know, look, I tend to be a little bit libertarian on these things, and you can bet on the stock market too. You can bet on sports. I mean, I just don't have as big a problem with this.
If you want to take a hard look at sports wagering, right, and whether or not that can become addictive, we can have that conversation. But that's not what they're talking about on all these programs, right? That's not what they're talking about. What they're talking about is how bad Sydney Sweeney is and how she has somehow demeaned female athletes by holding a tennis racket or wearing a hockey mask and looking quite beautiful.
Clip (Jake Munro, September 16 2026):
Jake Munro: You ever wonder why these people are getting all uppity about this? It's this. They don't get the male gaze.
They've never had it, and they're jealous that they don't get it. Dear Sydney Sweeney, women and if you don't know what AFAB is, get a load of this. Assigned female at birth.
God, just don't let leftists sneer words for fuck's sake. Dear Sydney's women and assigned female at birth people, also known as women, are not sex objects just because we play sports. Dear Sydney Sweeney, women and women assigned female at birth, you mean observed to be female at birth.
You take the baby out. Oh, it's got a little vagina. It's a girl. And if we did a blood test and a chromosome test on it, it would have all of the appropriate genetics of a woman, of a girl.
Women and assigned female at birth. You can, it's just women. Women are not sex objects just because we play sports.
I have no idea what that's in reference to. Just because you play sports, you're a sex object. Listen, this may come as a surprise to you, but we are actually sex objects. Like actually, every single aspect of your genetic structure from your genotype to your phenotype is a sex object.
Okay. You have a hormonal cycle. You have a specific musculature and skeletal build. You have reproductive organs. You have sperm, ovum, you have natural physical attractions to specific features that are conducive to reproduction and procreation. We are sex objects.
That's exactly what we are. Yes, women are sex objects. So are men.
Okay? We are sexual beings. Some would argue that sex or reproduction is the meaning of life. It is the most compelling, naturally compelling aspect of life itself. It's the thing we have in common with insects, with other mammals, with amphibians, with reptiles. It's the thing we have in common with all life.
With plants, actually. Within all of us is the ability to reproduce with the opposite sex of the same species, okay? And at the same time, there's also a hormonal cycle designed to make you want to do that. There's a stimulus, and there's also a means to an end. The meaning of life, I hypothesize, is if you were to remove it from life, life would end, okay? What can you remove from life? What meaning could you remove from life? What aspect of life could you remove which would ultimately fucking destroy it entirely? Reproduction.
The meaning of life is to keep making more life. And again, the weird thing here is the fact that Sydney Sweeney's out here making a choice to get her body out to sell, you know, sex sells, and that'll stop any day now, okay? I'm sure it will.
I'm sure men will learn their lesson to stop being attractive to sexy women. But Sydney Sweeney has her own autonomy, her own agency, her body her choice. She's allowed to get her perfectly shaped ass out, and she can use it to sell a betting website, is that I think is what it was. And that's her choice. But here's the kicker, okay?
Here's what the actual cause of this is. They don't get the male gaze. They've never had it, and they're jealous they don't get it. And they fucking hate that. They hate seeing a beautiful attractive woman on the internet or on TV, and all the men that she's attracted looking at Sydney Sweeney instead of her and going, oh, they don't get that. Attractive women, they don't mind the fucking male gaze. They know they're hot. They see other women being hot and getting male attention. It's like, yeah, it's just because we're hot.
It's jealousy is all it is. And there was a guy who was on TV and he absolutely destroyed this one chick's perspective on this, which is just like I'm reducing women as sex objects. Like, what the fuck are we using sex to sell? Yeah, we've been using sex to sell for thousands of years, actually. In fact, women are literally using sex, they sell sex, actually, ironically. Ironically, women are selling sex exclusively, almost women are selling sex, ironically, but women also do the same. They use sexy men to get their attention all the fucking time.
I mean, numerous of these sports magazines and sports distributions, they've had absed up, ripped dudes in their fucking jock straps as well. But that's fine. Because female sexuality, fine. Male sexuality, ew. Women though?
Feminine sexuality is so beautiful and just glowing and it's so wholesome and you're allowed to feel that, sweetie. But men getting boners over hot chicks, ew. Yes, these women, they do not get the male gaze. They despise it as a result, and they are going to make men feel like shit for thinking things are sexy. Imagine that you're a man, your instinct is to find hot lady hot, and because of these nasty fugly bitches, you are immediately ashamed. You feel ashamed of yourself for doing that.
You're like, I'm such a woke man of the new millennia. To think that I nearly gave in to my baser urge, my instincts to find this attractive woman attractive. That's disgusting. You know, I just hate men out there that just find sexy women sexy.
I've said this before, man. If I had one singular wish, my wish is that these people become unbelievably attractive. All of these leftists that instead of trying to make themselves look better, instead they try and change the concept of attractiveness, they try and change words around, they try and change society to find that attractive, or they then demonize the male gaze.
Not getting it, but I don't want it anyway, because it's disgusting. Yeah, my one wish would be to make these women attractive. It would be to make all leftists attractive, right? Get rid of their cripplingly low IQ. Fix their fat, pasty, spotty, hairy bodies, and instead replace it with rippling abs and well-defined pecs. Make them feel athletic. Strong. Leftism would disappear.
You understand? Leftism would disappear overnight. Leftism would disappear overnight.
This insistence of like you have to find ugly women attractive, and if you don't, then you're a pig. It would disappear overnight. One wish. Yeah, I wish all leftists were hot. They'd become right wing very, very quickly.
There's a reason why right wingers are in way better shape than left wingers. You work your ass, right? You lift weights and you go for a run and you eat right. Feel good about yourself. And because you feel good about yourself, you feel like the world is not there to give you stuff, right? You don't feel entitled to things. You've worked for your body and you feel like you should be able to work for other things too.
You don't feel entitled to other people's money, other people's labor, you don't feel entitled to other people's attention. You've got your own confidence, right? Got a pretty high self-esteem. Are you happy with what you got and what you got you earned?
Bob Metz:
Well, talk about the naked truth. Almost sounded like something right out of an Ayn Rand novel. High self-esteem. You're happy with what you've got and what you've got you earned. Bravo.
Personally, I would slightly amend Jake Munro's use of the term the meaning of life. So where he said that the meaning of life is to keep making more life, a sentiment with which I agree, but I would put it this way. The purpose or function of life is to create more life, while the meaning of each individual's life is something that he or she must determine for themselves.
Semantics? Maybe. But it's clear that many people have created more life without ever appreciating its meaning, especially those who seek to end life, whether their own or others, and certainly by joining the death cult of the left. But you've got to admit that we've fallen pretty far down the rabbit hole when it becomes necessary to define and explain the sexual polarity of male and female. We are sexual beings, correctly concludes Munro, the most compelling natural aspect of life itself. It's the thing we have in common with insects, other mammals, amphibians, reptiles, even with plants. And within all of this life is the ability to reproduce with the opposite sex of the same species. A hormonal cycle that makes you want to do that.
And of course, that's why it's perfectly understandable and reasonable for someone to say that Sydney Sweeney is hot. I get a particular kick out of hearing feminists and others on the left when condemning the so-called male gaze, suggest that men who are attracted to the opposite sex suffer from what they have termed toxic masculinity. What I want to know is to whom are these characteristics toxic.
Of course, I already do kind of know. I just want to hear those who use the term admit that it is they themselves who feel threatened by this toxicity. The term is ridiculous. It's the Marxist language of fools kind of stuff. Poisonous forms of sexuality, are you kidding me?
This is using the language of fools in an attempt to hide behind their own hatreds and shortcomings, which they ironically expose to the entire world by using this foolish language built on anti-concepts. I suppose that in their eyes, Sydney Sweeney and other attractive women are guilty of toxic femininity. This is just a denial of the polarity between male and female. But I bet you'll never hear them talking about toxic transgenderism. Now I can certainly accept the idea of toxic behavior, which would imply some form of aggression that might injure or kill. But that's about behavior, not identity.
And of course, to people who think that words are violence, anyone who proudly expresses their femininity, as did Sydney Sweeney, is demonstrating how beauty is violent. I mean, why not? It's perfectly consistent with their associative thinking. Debating these morons in an effort to educate or convert them, I warn you, would be a wasted effort. As we've observed often before, you can't fix stupid. But debating them in order to expose, mock, and laugh at them is time well spent.
They've earned it, and every effort should be made to reward them. Which is exactly what Sydney Sweeney did with her Novig ad. So do you still think Sydney Sweeney is not political? Just sports?
Think again. Was it just a patriotic coincidence that Sweeney's genes ad happened to be for a company named American Eagle? Or how pleased Donald Trump was when he learned that she was a registered Republican. Or how she just politically torpedoed her leftist critics by getting them to publicly immolate and embarrass themselves in a way that no reasonable person could avoid seeing.
And you know, maybe I shouldn't be suggesting this. But somehow I can't help but notice how Sweeney seems to be a female version of Donald Trump in the way that she either ignores or manipulates her very political critics. Consider Trish Regan's earlier observation.
The controversy was not an unfortunate side effect, it was actually an important part of the distribution plan. Now add to these strategies her popularity in entertainment combined with her business savvy. Is it possible we might be looking at America's first female president, say when she's in her 70s? And just as Trump did for as long as he could during his early career, she's still getting away with positioning herself as no politics, just sports.
And whoever said that politics itself isn't a sport. Betting on it certainly seems to be. And yeah, I know this is all wild speculation on my part. Or am I having a toxic masculine political fantasy about a future President Sweeney.
Either way, at my age, I certainly don't expect to be around anymore should this political upheaval actually come to pass. But in closing, I really have to shout another bravo to Jake Munro for coming up with the best and most effective insult to the ladies of the left. I wish all leftists were hot. They'd become right wing very quickly. That's gotta be one of the funniest and hard-hitting responses to all of the vacuous stuff coming out of the left that I've heard in a long time. It instantly called to mind, by the way, the earlier comment by Erin Molan when she closed off with her warning, and don't ever any of you comment again that I'm inappropriately dressed. Well, for the benefit of those who may never have seen Erin Molan, allow me to offer my theory as to why she was getting complaints objecting to her showing too much skin on the show. So here goes. Here's my theory. Ready? She's hot. And worse, a right-wing capitalist. Certainly more evidence concurring with Jake Munro's observation about the women to be found on the right.
Now, you may have noticed that both this week and last week, in our selected audio bites where we've highlighted so many women, both pro-child killer and anti-femininity, that we've made a point of featuring several female podcast voices who are not on the left and strongly oppose these supposedly female traits or stereotypes.
I think it's important to make it clear that the real social and political divide at work here is not fundamentally between men and women, but between two competing ideologies. The fact that women have disproportionately fallen victim to Marxist ideology was no accident. They were specifically targeted and conditioned through years of feminist propaganda to do so. And once conditioned to believe that they are victims of a patriarchy, they behave as such. And at this point, they are also conditioned to accept Marxist ideologies because Marxism always appeals to losers, and losers always resent the success of others.
So let's not allow these losers to turn their political ideologies into our war between men and women. I grew up during a time when sex, politics, and religion were often cited as the unholy trinity that people didn't discuss in polite company or at the dinner table. And that might have something to do with why, instead of doing so at the dinner table, we can always politely discuss sex, politics, and religion each and every week when you join us again on our journey in the right direction. And until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We'll see you then.
Clip (Laugh Society, July 25 2025, Teri Hatcher):
Teri Hatcher: You might remember me from an episode of Seinfeld that I did that had a very famous tagline. "They're real and they're spectacular."
I mean, now they're still real. And I would argue still spectacular if you're attracted to tube socks filled with sand hanging from a scarecrow.