Megyn Kelly slams Sydney Sweeney for 'sexualizing infancy' with Euphoria baby scene 0%

By Sophie Gable0%

4/15/2026, 11:59:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.1% saturation with 383 hits. Analysis detected 2,163 faulty-reasoning hits from 849 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 20,136 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Megyn Kelly lashed out at Sydney Sweeney while discussing a controversial clip of her Euphoria character dressed as a baby while filming OnlyFans content. 
The first episode of the show's third season dropped on Sunday and fans have criticized the hyper sexual depictions of its female characters. 
A trailer for the entire season depicts Sweeney's character, Cassie Howard, dressed as a baby in a compromising sexual position. 
Kelly claimed this was 'sexualizing infancy.' 
The former Fox News anchor analyzed the recent trailer alongside the hosts of the Ruthless podcast on Tuesday's Megyn Kelly Show. 
'The truth is - this is sexualizing infancy. 
That's what this is,' Kelly said to her cohosts while showing an image of Sweeney 'spread eagle' on a couch in a baby costume. 
She went on to slam fans who defended its content as a 'pretty common kink,' even branding Euphoria's creator, Sam Levinson, as 'sick.' 
As for Sweeney, Kelly said she was shocked the actress agreed to the sexual content, referencing another scene from the first episode where she was dressed as a dog and barked for her romantic partner, Nate Jacobs, played by Jacob Elordi. 
Levinson took the majority of the heat from the talk show host. 
Kelly went on to reference reports that some of the actresses on Euphoria were uncomfortable with the amount of nudity. 
She accused Levinson of 'injecting nudity' into scenes so the actresses would have to take their clothes off. 
Kelly speculated that the actresses put up with the excessive nudity because they want to be stars, but noted that some stories have leaked to the press that the women were uncomfortable. 
She then slammed Levinson as 'at a minimum a jerk, and more than likely - a problem.' 
Kelly argued that the controversial scenes were an example of 'Hollywood not understanding at all where the line is,' adding that most 'normal people,' including Sweeney's fans, will recoil at her dressed as a baby. 
The hosts of the Ruthless podcast agreed with Kelly's analysis, with one even speculating that Levinson was working out a 'sick fetish' through Euphoria's production. 
Kelly added that she had not seen the show and speculated that the controversial scenes were potentially a commentary on OnlyFans and porn culture. 
In the series, Sweeney's character, Cassie, is exploring a career as an OnlyFans model. 
Kelly has frequently expressed mixed feelings about Sweeney on her show. 
She defended the actress after Sweeney found herself in the middle of a firestorm over her American Eagle ad, where she boasted about her 'good jeans/genes.' 
However, Kelly refused to defend Sweeney in October when the actress sported a see-through silver gown on the red carpet, once again sparking conversation. 
'I object to this. 
I disapprove of the dress she wore because it's completely see-through. 
You can see her entire nipples,' Kelly said at the time. 
The commentator did give Sweeney some grace, noting that the actress may have been coerced into wearing the revealing gown. 
Back in July, Sweeney's name was on Kelly's tongue once again when the actress was seen at Jeff Bezos' wedding to Lauren Sanchez. 
'How does she wind up there?' 
Kelly questioned, before launching into a brutal jab: 'Sydney Sweeney’s the new toast of the town out there because she’s got these enormous breasts that everybody’s obsessed with.' 
Kelly is far from the only one criticizing Sweeney. 
Sweeney's politics have come under a microscope since her viral American Eagle ad, and her portrayal of Cassie in Euphoria's latest season has drawn a slew of negative reviews. 
Forbes called the premiere episode 'a shadow of what it was, at best,' while The Telegraph said the show had 'descended into one man's creepy, sex-obsessed fantasy.' 
The trailer for the season also disappointed fans, with online commentary claiming it was a 'humiliation ritual.' 
Others called the controversial scenes 'gross' and 'nasty.' 
Levinson has defended the show, explaining that Sweeney's sexual scenes were intended to 'break the wall' between the audience and the characters. 
He said Cassie has 'got her dog house and her little dog ears and the nose, and that has its own humor, but what makes the scene is the fact that her housekeeper is the one filming it.' 
'What we wanted to always find is the other layer of absurdity that we’re able to tie into it so that we’re not too inside of her fantasy or illusion—the gag is to jump out, to break the wall.' 
'We wanted to capture what she’s trying to show the audience and be inside of it, but then also pull back wider and see how depressing it is.' 
Sweeney told The Independent in 2022 that she never felt pushed into doing naked scenes, and Levinson welcomed feedback. 
'There are moments where Cassie was supposed to be shirtless, and I would tell Sam, "I don’t really think that’s necessary here." 
He was like, "Okay, we don’t need it,"' she added. 
The Daily Mail has reached out to HBO Max for additional comment on Kelly's criticism of the show. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.4%Sophie Gable: 3.2%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias15.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Sophie Gable: 2.8%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic14.0%This article: 7.4%Sophie Gable: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Sophie Gable: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 6.6%Sophie Gable: 12.3%Daily Mail: 9.2%Framing Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 2.5%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Sophie Gable: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias2.8%This article: 45.1%Sophie Gable: 11.5%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias45.1%This article: 3.8%Sophie Gable: 0.8%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 2.1%Sophie Gable: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error2.1%This article: 2.6%Sophie Gable: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Sophie Gable: 0.4%Daily Mail: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 2.2%Daily Mail: 4.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Sophie Gable: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 4.1%Sophie Gable: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 2.8%Sophie Gable: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias2.8%This article: 11.0%Sophie Gable: 6.8%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem11.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.7%Sophie Gable: 2.5%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority13.7%This article: 4.1%Sophie Gable: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.2%Sophie Gable: 5.6%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Sophie Gable: 1.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 8.5%Sophie Gable: 5.3%Daily Mail: 7.5%Appeal to Emotion8.5%This article: 3.1%Sophie Gable: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.6%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.5%Sophie Gable: 2.1%Daily Mail: 3.2%Anecdotal22.5%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Sophie Gable: 2.8%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Sophie Gable: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground4.6%This article: 4.8%Sophie Gable: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.8%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Sophie Gable: 1.4%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote3.1%This article: 5.9%Sophie Gable: 1.8%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 16.4%Sophie Gable: 10.6%Daily Mail: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 11.2%Sophie Gable: 1.3%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination11.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 1.3%Daily Mail: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Gable: 1.8%Daily Mail: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

849 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers54%attributed speech394writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 8 words • 100.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 24 words • 100.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 35 words • 100.0% coverageRuthless podcast • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMegyn Kelly • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSam Levinson • 38 words • 0.0% coverageSam Levinson • 39 words • 0.0% coverageSam Levinson • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSydney Sweeney • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSydney Sweeney • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSydney Sweeney • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Mail • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ruthless podcast

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words5.5% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.2 ptsWriter: 29.2%Ruthless podcast: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Ruthless podcast: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Ruthless podcast: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Ruthless podcast: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.