ESPN's naked Athletes

[md09john316]

I was on AOL and saw this article about ESPN's first ever publication of it's body issue. http://http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/28/espns-naked-athletes-heavenly-bodies-queasy-christians/. This publication by ESPN is a perfect bridge for anyone looking to start a conversation about the naturist lifestyle. As, I have posted on here in various places, I am a Bible believing Christian. I do not support the misguided views of many people who believe that the Bible prohibits nudity; for when the Bible is correctly read, it does not.

[steve-o]

URL is actually:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/28/espns-naked-athletes-heavenly-bodies-queasy-christians/

[Agde]

So let me get this straight. The point of competitiive sports is to see whose body, or team of bodies, can do a specific task in the most perfected way or to the highest limit. But an ESPN "body issue" seems inappropriate to some sport fans because..... Oh, yah, forgot, bodies are only for sex. :confused:

I guess what I'd like to hear as a response from ESPN -- to throw out any moralists trying to steal second base -- is something like: "In our industry, of course, bodies aren't sex objects, they're business assets." :)

[JoseO42]

This just seems like a cheap tactic for ESPN to use to gain business. Granted that they could take some artistic nudes of the athletes so it is possible that it might have some value as art but I think it is just another way for ESPN to make a buck.

[steve-o]

This just seems like a cheap tactic for ESPN to use to gain business. Granted that they could take some artistic nudes of the athletes so it is possible that it might have some value as art but I think it is just another way for ESPN to make a buck.


Surely it's a way to sell magazines, no doubt.
Bad for them.

But if the photos are tastefully done it will act as another fine medium to showcase nudity in a very positive light ... especially to those prudish fans who (think they) find nudity so taboo.
Good for our cause.

[nuovonudo]

if making the "nude" photos tasteful consists in hiding the athletes' genitalia, then how do the photos help the nudist/naturist cause? they might as well be photos of the athletes in skimpy bathing attire or underwear. hiding the subjects' "private parts" merely reinforces the notion that there is something wrong with certain parts of the body, so in my view it does nothing to further the naturist agenda.

[Lord Drakkus]

if making the "nude" photos tasteful consists in hiding the athletes' genitalia, then how do the photos help the nudist/naturist cause? they might as well be photos of the athletes in skimpy bathing attire or underwear. hiding the subjects' "private parts" merely reinforces the notion that there is something wrong with certain parts of the body, so in my view it does nothing to further the naturist agenda.

I can mostly agree with that. Not showing the genitalia does imply that there is something to hide. And in modern "society" by the understand of those in charge, that's how things should be. Which is the problem. We need to show the average American citizen that "society" is actually just a few loudmouths who try to dictate how the rest of the world should be.

So yeah, this won't exactly help our case, but it definitely can't hurt it either. Did you notice the image that was posted with the article? It very nearly showed his butt. Definitely no harm done for us.

[md09john316]

I agree that this may not initially help our cause, but this could be of use as a starting point to discuss nudity with our friends and neighbors. Right now, It could just be a business move to try and help them draw from the Sport Illustrated crowd;if this body issue is well received it could become something that would help the naturist movement by always giving us a way to constantly bridge the two. I agree that obscuring the genitals only helps to reinforce the idea that something is wrong with them, but this idea has not been tried by ESPN, so I'm going to cut them some slack and see how well this issue sells.

[steve-o]

Let's be realistic and practical.

Unless they sell the magazine next to Playboy and they don't allow anyone under 18 to buy it they are not going to show genitals.

The athlete/models are nude. This is a good thing.

The genitals will be obscured or strategetically hidden to keep the pictures rated PG. This is the law.

Would we all rather have them not hide their genitals in the pictures? Sure.

But let's be real and at least applaud the magazine publishers and the athletes for pushing it as far as they can and let's be upbeat and positive that they are showing nude well-known athletes in a mainstream sport magazine. Good!
(And yes, we all understand that they just want to compete with SI's swimsuit issue and it's about selling magazines and advertising). But this can only help our cause, not hurt it.

Being an athlete myself and being around a lot of athletes, I can say that most of them are not ashamed of their bodies nor feel compelled to hide their genitals, men and women, (around others when changing or during a photo shoot, etc..). But again folks, be real: these pictures must hide them for this mainstream magazine's photos.