Uh oh! Looks like Michelangelo was into "soft core porn" as well! And those first Olympics -when athletes competed in the nude - that was hard-core!
Posted on 07/11/2012 8:37:55 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Since its debut back in 1998, ESPN the Magazine has tried to find a hook to rival the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Well, the editors at “the Mag,” as they refer to their publication, may very well have found it with their annual “Body Issue,” which just arrived at newsstands.
It boasts multiple covers, the most shocking of which features New England Patriots tight-end Rob Gronkowski, in all his naked splendor, striking a full-frontal pose, save for a strategically-placed dot covering his package.
And Gronkowski is not the only athlete that put out for ESPN’s Body Issue. Another 26 jocks and jockettes got unclothed for the cameras, much to the titillation, no doubt, of the magazine’s more voyeuristic readers.
Of course, the editors at the Mag deny they are trying to out-sex SI, whose annual swimsuit issue is borderline soft-core pornography. ESPN claims that its Body Issue is “a celebration of the athletic form.”
Indeed, some of the nudes might be considered “artistic” in some quarters. But ESPN’s image of Gronkowski will never be mistaken for Michelangelo’s “David.” Nor will the Mag’s photo of Ronda Rousy, the mixed martial artist, be confused with the “Venus de Milo.”
ESPN’s Body Issue is not about art. It’s not about stopping, as the Mag disingenuously suggests, “to admire the vast potential of the human form.”
It’s about luring readers to the Mag to see athletes “taking it off,” as ESPN teases.
That’s why the Mag promises us nude pictorials of “the bodies we want.” That’s why it invites its readers to “imagine how it would feel to inhabit those bodies.”
There is little doubt those double entendres are intentional.
What particularly disappoints is that ESPN the Magazine has persuaded professed Christian athletes to appear unclothed in its Body Issue.
Like Carmelita Jeter, who appears in this year’s issue, who praised God effusively after winning the 100-meter dash at the recent U.S. Olympic Trials, but who somehow sees nothing ungodly about posing for nudey photos.
She follows the example set last year by Lolo Jones, the U.S. Olympic hurdler, who says she is honoring God by staying a virgin until marriage, but who stripped down in the Mag for the whole world to see.
Like every other athlete whot has appeared in the Body Issue the past four years, Jeter and Jones rationalize that there is nothing wrong with nudity. That it’s natural. That it’s a beautiful thing.
Well, the young women are right, for the most part, when it comes to private nudity. But they are wrong, for the most part, about public nudity, such as their soft-core pictorials in ESPN’s Body Issue.
Indeed, the nude athletic bodies on public dispaly in the Mag tempt readers to look upon them lustfully. And causing others to stumble into sin is itself a sin.
I believe it's because, in their spirits, they know it's wrong to publicly expose themselves, particularly to the millions of under-age kids who look up to them.
Most of the athletes were at least doing a relevant action shot. Gronkowski’s photos were just about getting naked.
Bawney Fwank has ordered twelve subscriptions.
Spot on article. I’ve loathed ESPN since I stopped drinking the NFL Known Felons League’s Koolaid. They’re always first to cry racism, many times before Jesse and Al Sharpie have their busses warmed up and loaded with their rent-a-mobs. I sure wish Fox Sports Channel would have survived. They were honest about their racial bias and sometimes frankly embarrassed.
The Daily Caller is guilty of the same, I noticed. Use to post there but complained against the soft porn posings and dropped them. Irritated me no end the lack of respect for conservatives on a red meat news site.
I can’t really weigh in until I see the offending pictures. I am sure I am not alone.
Uh oh! Looks like Michelangelo was into "soft core porn" as well! And those first Olympics -when athletes competed in the nude - that was hard-core!
Hmmmmm.....seems gay to me.
Amen and hellz yeah!!
I buy ESPN for the articles . . .
so, don’t buy it
I think the point was that they DIDN’T expose themselves. You don’t see anymore of any of the athletes then you would see at the beach. Porn depicts(soft) or displays(hard) sexual activity, it’s not just pictures of scantily clad people.
![](http://christiandiarist.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/espn.jpg?w=124&h=150")
Quote from your article, "Indeed, the nude athletic bodies on public dispaly in the Mag tempt readers to look upon them lustfully. And causing others to stumble into sin is itself a sin."
You should not criticize others for things that you also do, especially when you believe it is wrong.
a little fruity there.
Walt Disney must be rolling in the grave. (no he is not frozen)
We have no “pictures of naked men.” Nor naked women, for that matter. We posted a photo of ESPN the Magazine’s cover. That’s journalism.
ESPN the magazine has always been gay porno. America’s sports cult is an embarasment.
Neither Playboy or Playgirl depict actual “sexual activity.” Are they not pornography?
http://espn.go.com/espn/photos/gallery/_/id/7030506/bodies-want-2011#/3/
I think Gronk has a screw loose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.