ESPN has been producing a body issue since 2009. I don’t care for sports, but it’s always nice looking at happy naked people, and the photography is spectacular, and all kinds of body types grace the issues. On the cover of this years issue is a woman who happens to be an amputee. There are no naughty bits on view, as that would be too much for the prudery of Americans. Apparently, some conservatives have just now figured this out, and are most outraged.
ESPN’s latest controversy has nothing to do with politics or sports performance. The sports network is now resorting to nudity for magazine sales and internet clicks to lead the world in entertainment. ESPN magazine’s “The Body Issue” presents 23 male and female athletes not only out of uniform but completely out of clothing. If your business is flagging, as ESPN’s is, just resort to the lowest common denominator.
Now resorting? They’ve been doing this 8 years. Where was your outrage eight years ago? Obviously, ESPN is not doing this to shore up flagging business.
Putting the anti-Trump and LGBT agendas aside for the time being, ESPN’s website is promoting the athletes-turned-exhibitionists in shocking athletic poses. Each is portrayed taking athletic stances or actions corresponding to their respective sport. Rear ends are completely exposed in several photos. Men and women hide their fronts, and women cover their breasts with their hands or arms. Very little is left to the imagination.
Oh my oh my. There is nothing in the least bit shocking about their poses. They are fantastic, and I give them all the credit in the world for pulling off what has to be a difficult shoot, often outdoors, in mid-athletics while having to keep the naughty bits hidden. All kudos to the photographers, too, for an incredible job. Goodness, butts! Whatever will we do, having been exposed to some rather magnificent arses? Me, I’ll enjoy them. Actually, a fair amount is left to the imagination, and I expect that’s more of a problem for you fuckwits.
ESPN.com posted a photo and cutline about the nudity. ESPNW is displaying stories and videos on some of the participating nudists.
Oh the drama! They aren’t nudists, you idiot. Are you a nudist because you take off your clothing to bathe, assuming you do so? Are you a nudist if you remove your clothing to make love to your partner, assuming you do? No. Taking your clothes off for a photo shoot doesn’t make anyone a nudist. I’m more of a nudist than any of the people featured over the last eight years, I often don’t bother dressing, especially if I’m going to be painting. It’s easier washing paint off skin than clothing. Even that doesn’t make me a nudist, though.
This isn’t ESPN magazine’s first body issue; it’s the ninth. It seems this crass outfit is intent on shocking people and distracting sports’ fans attention away actual sports. Now when families attend a sporting event, their children may remark about the athlete that actually has his clothes on.
Oh, how nice of you to notice. Now, now, don’t be projecting your shock all over the place, it isn’t polite. It doesn’t shock me in the slightest. I can appreciate bodies just fine. I hardly see how this directs peoples’ attention away from sports. It’s not as though most athletic uniforms are made for modesty. The children! Of course. Could it get more boring or stupid? So, a child might make a remark about an athlete with their clothing on. And?
I encourage all parents with children in the home to adjust their computer filters by adding ESPN.com and espn.com/espnw/ to their blocked lists to protect them from this.
ESPN postures itself as culturally enlightening, but the truth is this morally bankrupt media organization is contaminating our culture and taking it downward.
Hahahahahaha. Do fuck off. Not that I don’t have suspicions about copies of ESPN’s body issues being secreted someplace in your abode sir, most likely the lavatory. After all, you can’t get all properly outraged without a lengthy and minute examination of all those delicious bodies, right?
Link.
Athletes? Famous people? Role models? And they’re being publicly depicted without their clothes?
My, oh, my. How antithetical to civilization. Thank goodness it’s only been going on for 8 years. After all, if those critics want to go back to a time before public images of nude athletes, I wouldn’t want it to be too difficult for them.
Didn’t you know, the nekkid is a purely new phenomenon! It has never ever happened before, no.
Never. Not even the once.
ESPNs big business problem isn’t failing ratings but rather the move away from traditional televised events in general, and the fact that they are on the hook for billions in contracts that will not earn enough to keep them in the black, in specific.
“the athletes-turned-exhibitionists in shocking athletic poses.”
That’s priceless.
Was Michelangelo’s business flagging when he sculpted David?
I looked at all 74 bodies at the ESPN site.
I think human bodies are mostly quite alright but when the owner spends alot of time tuning theirs, the results can be quite stunning.
but…
don’t athletes have body hair?
I’m hoping cartomancer will show up with some tidbits about how the ancients used to compete nude.
I’ve always loved Howard Schatz’ nudes of dancers. They’re beautiful. (On the other hand, I’ve done dance photography, and IMO shooting dancers is sort of like eating pizza: anyone can make it look good)
Some of the photo-shoots must have been hilarious.
.
High-performance-athletes performing highly:
jumping.leaping.climbing.throwing.catching.falling.bouncing.
all whilst covering their bits.
.
To get the right light, the shoot is at sunrise:
photo crew are wearing long trousers and hoodies
photo subjects are wearing … a basketball
As for the picture up top,
I cannot focus on anything but the right hand of the person in front.
What activity does that to your palm?
(let’s not bother with the wanking jokes, ok?)
chigau — Not a clue, but I’m betting it’s something that puts a lot of friction on the palms, such as rowing, or some gymnastics. Those are some burly calluses!
…and boy did I break that tag!
Apologies, only chigau’s name was supposed to be bolded!
I wonder if the author of the quoted garbage ever uses the word “gymnasium” or knows its etymology.
The human body is so perfectly natural. Why do the prudish conservatives consistently try to make it dirty? If they weren’t so hung up on their prudishness, their insistence on being shocked, and their constant wet-blanketing of anything that might be considered fun, they might actually enjoy this life instead of being so miserable.
*sigh* I guess nekkidness is going out of vogue because the fundamentalist mind can’t climb out of the gutter. Not just in sports but in art (see censorship of this poster for an art exhibit on disability and body appreciation). Sad.
Me, I love the eye candy and bodies bodying with excellence. Shameless (in the best way).
rq:
Oh ffs. Now, that’s an outrage.
Caine
Strangely enough, it’s become something of an outrage locally. I think partly because of traditional (sauna?) culture, nakedness has long been perceived as normal. The ‘suggestive’ pose of the poster has brought many a ‘wash out your minds, the children are fine’ response.
Now? Now? These have been their best selling and most collectible issues for years.
Goes to show how often Repubes look at anything that may involve reading.
Rowing truly does toughen up your hands.
There will be a 1 hour special on the shooting of the magazine this Fri on ESPN2, FYI.
(Info from the SJ Sharks email list, since a couple of players are featured.)
Three words for them -- Page Three Girls : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3
Which interestingly or not have been dropped recently because of popular demand(s). Surely the conservative in question has heard of those and how typically hypocritically of ’em.
Huh. I always thought ESPN’s body issue was a critique response of sorts to SI’s swimsuit issues, which solely featured the male gaze on scantily clad supermodels. For ESPN, to me, it seemed the point was to highlight athleticism of the human body in all its forms rather than provide overtly sexualized wank fodder for a narrow segment of the population the way SI did. You know, because they are an athletic magazine for athletes of all genders and people who appreciate sport of all genders, unlike SI, which long failed to get the message that people other than straight cis men are part of their audience.
Onamission5, yeah, I’d much rather appreciate all the lovely athletic bodies, than see yet more women in swimsuits.
(not a diehard sportsfan, but have long been partnered with people who were)
My impression of ESPN overall is that, while absolutely not perfect, the org. has long been slightly ahead of the curve in representation and attention to athletes and forms of athleticism (and commentators/analysts) which existed outside the typical focus of most other sport related media. Not exactly super duper progressive but at least took seriously the fact that athleticism (and sexiness!) isn’t limited to one demographic, nor is the ability to have insight about sports.
(Quick google search of terms “ESPN progressive” resulted in pages upon pages of whining from conservative white men about exactly what I said above, whaa whaa, we’re not being solely catered to you’re going to fail as a business whaa. The outcry about the body issue is connected to a wider complaint about SJW’s ruining sports media by taking people other than straight white cis guys into consideration)