By – K.S. Prathignya

Abstract

This article examines the commodification of women’s bodies under liberal feminism, using critical frameworks to correlate it with the recent controversy of Sydney Sweeney’s ‘bath-water soap’. This article argues that liberal feminism places ‘empowerment of a woman’ on her body, however her body is sold for the male gaze. This is significant as the patriarchy disguises itself as a form of ‘empowerment’ for upcoming young women.

Introduction/Contextual Background 

Sydney Sweeney is an American actress who gained popularity due to a majority of her fanbase objectifying her body, and for being cast in roles that centralize sex appeal for the male gaze. 

Her first big acting role was in ‘Euphoria’, where she portrayed the character ‘Cassie’, she was 24 years old.  A film that did not try to appeal to any gaze at all, was the horror film ‘Immaculate’. This film grossed $10 Million at the box office, earning a top 5 spot in terms of horror cinema competition. Although, aside from a certain amount of recognition towards Sydney Sweeney’s acting skills, there was no general interest towards this accomplishment. However, when compared to the box office flop ‘Madame Web’, she gained more general recognition for her supporting role as there was more ‘sex appeal’. In an interview, she had expressed how this rampant objectification affects her. On March 20th 2024, she stated that she feels like “people feel connected and free to be able to speak about me in whatever way they want, because they believe that I’ve signed my life away and may not consider me a human”. She further describes how although she is aware of all of the remarks people make on her body, she does not present a reaction. However, this is not the first time that an article or interview made the headlines about Sydney Sweeney’s body, in fact most media outlets focus on her sexual history, information, and images of her body. She is also dressed in a way that objectifies her constantly. She mentioned in an interview with glamour “I’m wearing the same dress that anyone would be wearing, I just have tits…and those won’t change or else they won’t get clicks.”. She acknowledges how she is villainised for having a body and how the industry recognizes solely that for engagement. 

It should be clear she does not dress herself and hence, there is no balance of what is shown. Her Met Gala 2025 look was majorly criticized, and only enunciated her breasts. Images that do not highlight her breasts, do not make the headlines. 

However, the controversy which this article focuses on emerged around May 29th, 2025. Sydney Sweeney collaborated with Dr. Sasquatch (a men’s luxury soap brand) to come out with a product of her own. 

‘Bathwater Bliss’, is a body soap bar which contains less than 0.01% of Sydney Sweeney’s used bathwater in it. This was a limited edition product set to launch on June 6th 2025, with 5,000 soap bars for $8. It was resold on eBay for higher prices.

Previously, what led to this idea was her starring in a Dr. Sasquatch advertisement ‘Dirty Little Boys’ which blatantly objectified her to sell natural body wash. She is seen to be reciting suggestive lines typically seen in pornography. However, this led her fanbase to plead her to release a product with her bathwater in it. Aside from her fanbase that is majorly built from objectifying her supporting this, there were many critics on the ethics, hygiene, and audience that this drags in. 

Hollywood has tried and succeeded to fit her into an actress archetype that is heavily sexualised for her body. Sydney Sweeney possibly pursues roles that give her patriarchal sexual appeal, to cultivate a certain audience, as she has the accessibility to do so. Bordering a pornstar-esque image in this industry and not focusing on presenting her talented acting instead.

A Critical Analysis:

What is alarming about Sydney Sweeney’s case is that she is not a sex worker in any way. Women in the adult industry are blatantly dehumanized and commodified. They are separated into genres and are only seen as a product that provides sex. Sydney Sweeney remains as an example of how capitalism stamps a seal of liberal feminism to yet again view and sell women as commodities. All women are inherently understood as something that can be sold (product or service). 

What began as a subtle commodification became more crude and unfiltered as Sydney Sweeney fed into her body being her main quality. Technically, her acting career started at 24. Therefore, by American law it is legal to have her presented promiscuously on screen. However, from a psychological and social standpoint, having young women believe that empowerment comes from being promiscuous in a manner that eventually boils down to performing for the male gaze and functioning under patriarchal standards, is harmful. Sydney Sweeney’s first ever major acting role as Cassie from Euphoria heavily circled around her being a promiscuous damsel in distress, and had her nudes on screens in season one. Sydney Sweeney has expressed how she was proud of her work in Euphoria, even though  the primary focus was on her body. In fact, a lot of her roles that gained recognition and built a fanbase, were suggestive roles that endlessly objectified her and adhered to the male gaze; strengthening the pornstar-esque archetype. Similarly, she remains relevant and gains recognition when there is a mention of her body. It becomes the only way for her to profit. 

Economic Hegemony through Beauty Standards and Objectification

Firstly, using a Gramscian framework, this article will use the case of Sydney Sweeney’s controversy to demonstrate how this actress has eventually adhered to hegemonic beauty standards. Gramsci refers to a hegemony as a domination of values (of any sphere) in a particular system. In global society, the values that dominate the perception of beauty is that of which adheres to the male gaze.

Male gaze is not what men decide collectively to find attractive. The other side of the coin is where there is further degeneration of the psychological state of men not in the rich minority. The patriarchy sells sex and falsified beauty standards onto men (of the working class), this becomes widely accepted by these men, and strengthens the economic values that the hegemony wants to maintain. For example, if the hegemony wishes to maintain conservatism (which it does with Sydney Sweeney), it sells ‘traditional’ women as perfect, mainly through the weaponization of sex appeal. This archetype building leads to further dehumanization through fetishizing women into mere ‘genres’. It is a form of toxic masculinity that repackages gender roles as beauty standards.  

For this context, the general and dominant archetype will be focused upon. That is feminine, submissive, and maternal women. There may be a biological component behind it, but the fact that this is sold as a suggestive aspect shows that there is an incessant genrefication of women. There are several archetypes and ‘genres’ of women, but the one that fits into traditional gender roles sell the best. Antonio Gramsci argued how there are many forms of apparatus to reaffirm this which fall under forms of civil society. Similarly, Louis Althusser also conceptualizes how there are ideological state apparatuses (ISA) that work for and against the state through civil society, to maintain the state’s hegemonic values.

Hollywood reinforces Sydney Sweeney as this particular archetype constantly, by giving her popularity points only if she is casted in roles which reaffirm traditional gender roles or are presented in ways that give her sex appeal, if not both. Both eventually become components  of the male fantasy. Therefore, when Sydney Sweeney advertises in both of these manners, a link is created between these two characteristics, creating an archetype reinforced in hegemonic values of what women should be like in society. 

Media outlets also have a different approach towards female celebrities, which only focuses on her physical attractiveness, scandals surrounding it, and personal aspects such as sex lives. Otherwise, they simply do not make headlines, let alone profits.  This is exactly what happened to Sydney Sweeney, and once this commodification is realized has the option to make profit and advertise in accordance to this archetype or lose her relevance in Hollywood. 

Through a Marxist lens, what can be observed is a commodification and fetishization of women. It was always meant to become an inherent idea that all parts of women can be profited off of. This is by either selling them itself (such as Sydney Sweeney’s bathwater bliss) or selling to them (the incessant insecurities created through the fantasization and sexualization of celebrities like Sydney Sweeney). 

Sexualization becomes not only profit, but a form of power. The power that the patriarchy holds over women in various areas of social hierarchy. It becomes a matter of class in how this patriarchy holds power. Women that are not rich and famous, are sold products based on their insecurities. However, the women that fall into the prior, cannot profit unless dehumanized to a point to create these insecurities. And this in itself becomes an insecurity, because their sex appeal in accordance with the male gaze becomes the main point of their lives. 

The Commodification of Sex and Feminism 

One of the original reasons that promiscuousness was encouraged by feminism was to undermine the importance of purity culture and abolish social norms that only view women as sexual objects. However, what liberal feminism has done is taken this idea and attached a profit-making motive onto it. Therefore, women try to detach from one side of the male gaze spectrum by attaching to another side. The importance of a woman is still defined by her body.  When Sydney Sweeney had sold her ‘bathwater bliss’, the perspective of it being a smart ‘marketing’ technique was only pointed out by a few, while most men were just happy to have access to a product that contained a highly objectified woman’s bathwater. ‘Bathwater Bliss’ also exists as an ISA to push a suggestive narrative, through wordplay. It propagates a certain archetype of woman as blissful, through its word play, it links sex with this archetype. Simultaneously, it commodifies Sydney Sweeney as a product that sells sex, through labelling the most mundane item (bathwater) with adjectives such as ‘bliss’. 

She is merely a sexual object, pushed to the point of not being seen as a human itself but a commodity.

From a psychological standpoint, young women then only obsess over their physical attractiveness, because it is ‘empowering’ to adhere to patriarchal standards of beauty. Therefore, they only function as products in the patriarchy. For example, Sydney Sweeney has claimed to feel empowered and in control, claiming to feel sexy and strong. However, so much of what she appeals to diminishes her hard work, only highlighting her body. 

The original objective for removing sexual taboos is to ensure that that there is no rampant objectification past inherent biological desire. This means women are not inherent products, and promiscuousness is an aspect of self expression, but not the only kind. However, liberal feminism has taken this, twisted, and maintained an economic hegemony over women’s bodies. This has been done by demonizing modesty and capitalizing on selling every part of a woman. It is not self expression if it is the only thing one is recognized for, sexualization becomes an implicit standard of how women could gain mobility and validation from the patriarchy, regardless of them not explicitly being in the adult industry. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, liberal feminism tries to push profit-making as central to a woman’s freedom. However, aside from displaying physical freedom, this is not psychological freedom. To be only acknowledged when adhering to the male gaze and patriarchy is not feminism. Sydney Sweeney remains as a prime example of how women make the most profit when sexualising themselves to the point of fantasy and a pornstar-esque archetype. Eventually, the importance of a woman is placed on her body. It does not matter if a woman is a sex worker or not, because inherently they already are to the patriarchy. 

Author’s Bio: Prathignya Komandur Sriram is a second-year student majoring in Political Science (Hons) as well as a minor in Economics. Her interests include applying critical heterodox theory to dissect how ideological apparatuses, contextual climates, and capitalism shape public discourse in the 21st century.

Image Source: For Women, Discrimination Is Compounding