CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Off Topic => Topic started by: EJPLAYA on July 09, 2017, 01:51:14 PM
-
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I am fed up with having to open up ESPN online and the first thing I see in large image are naked photos of men and women. What on Earth have we come to in society where this is okay?! How do we tolerate this? Don't want to hear the false argument that it is somehow art. It's soft core **** plain and simple. I shouldn't have to look over my shoulder when I'm logging in to check doors scores or stories to see if my children are behind me. Please do as I did and send an email to support@espn.com to voice your desire for them to get this crap off there. This is why their group is imploding. No values and loss of focus of why they're there.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
-
ya i just saw the womens' hockey team on the front page. ESPN leads the 18-54 year old men viewership on primetime TV, so that's who they're adhering to im guessing (but they definitely have men up there too).
i dont think it's all that bad tbh. they're pretty well censored. i wouldnt put in the NSFW category.
-
I receive ESPN magazine every month. I stuck my issue of The Body Issue in the recycling bin without opening it. I've got nothing against it personally, but I've got two young kids and it's not appropriate for them. I don't want to risk them opening it (they are incredibly curious especially my seven year old boy). Others may have different opinions and that's fine.
-
I think the Body Issue is dumb and pointless, but I think you may be overreacting a bit concluding that this somehow showcases a lack of morals from ESPN.
I don't go to SI.com, but out of curiosity do they plaster their front page with bewbs during the month that the swimsuit edition comes out?
-
Its gross and obscene. People want to check sports scores with kids around have to explain things to kids.
-
I think the Body Issue is dumb and pointless, but I think you may be overreacting a bit concluding that this somehow showcases a lack of morals from ESPN.
I don't go to SI.com, but out of curiosity do they plaster their front page with bewbs during the month that the swimsuit edition comes out?
so 2 wrongs make a right?
-
We live in a world of perverts. It's sickening. And if Gordy is ever in it, Robyn better be to.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/nB2mdEw.png)
-
I think the Body Issue is dumb and pointless, but I think you may be overreacting a bit concluding that this somehow showcases a lack of morals from ESPN.
I don't go to SI.com, but out of curiosity do they plaster their front page with bewbs during the month that the swimsuit edition comes out?
so 2 wrongs make a right?
I'm not getting what you are trying to imply there?
I'm just wondering if SI.com does the same thing or not; I don't recall people being as upset with the swimsuit edition as they are with the body issue, so I'm actually under the assumption that SI doesn't constantly plaster those images on their front page. I believe that the swimsuit edition is a separate annual magazine as opposed to taking up a regular magazine slot like ESPN does it, but again I don't use SI so I'm not certain/
-
The "its just the human body get over it" argument is null because some of us go to watch sports and don't want to be bombarded with obscene pictures like that. And I can totally understand those with kids watching espn. Its disrespectful. I didn't want to see that stuff.
-
Yes, the human body is unnatural and we should all be ashamed and afraid of it because reasons.
-
I think the Body Issue is dumb and pointless, but I think you may be overreacting a bit concluding that this somehow showcases a lack of morals from ESPN.
I don't go to SI.com, but out of curiosity do they plaster their front page with bewbs during the month that the swimsuit edition comes out?
so 2 wrongs make a right?
I'm not getting what you are trying to imply there?
I'm just wondering if SI.com does the same thing or not; I don't recall people being as upset with the swimsuit edition as they are with the body issue, so I'm actually under the assumption that SI doesn't constantly plaster those images on their front page. I believe that the swimsuit edition is a separate annual magazine as opposed to taking up a regular magazine slot like ESPN does it, but again I don't use SI so I'm not certain/
I'm not sure about that either
-
I'm not a fan of it either, but it's not filth.
-
Yes, the human body is unnatural and we should all be ashamed and afraid of it because reasons.
or how about not being shoved naked gross pics when some of us try to relax watching a sports game.
-
I said the same thing the other day when I saw it. They are using it to push their agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if they had Bruce Jenner on it next year.
-
We live in a world of perverts. It's sickening. And if Gordy is ever in it, Robyn better be to.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT77XWum9yH7zNkFW0/giphy.gif)
This might be the most genius thing I've ever read on here lol
-
Our snow flake country get snow flakier every day...wow
-
Yes, the human body is unnatural and we should all be ashamed and afraid of it because reasons.
or how about not being shoved naked gross pics when some of us try to relax watching a sports game.
Exactly. The human body is super gross and something to be hidden at all times. Very unnatural to see something like that.
-
Yes, the human body is unnatural and we should all be ashamed and afraid of it because reasons.
or how about not being shoved naked gross pics when some of us try to relax watching a sports game.
I don't care to see those pics either, but to say they're gross? Ummm.... no.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
-
It's the human body. Nothing gross about it.
You don't like it? Fine. Just because you are uncomfortable and want to shield your kids is a sad excuse to call it trash.
And quite frankly, it's not like they show any private parts etc. They all pose.
-
lol all the robots sound the same. "its just the human body get over it." this is the defense argument people use when they have no defense. You can also make sex and violence acceptable. "its just sex!" "its just violence" "its just a cuss word"
I don't want to see ITs human body.. I want to see a game. With kids. We don't want perverted art. We want a game
-
Wow..
Trying to tell people what Art is according to your personal opinions is one thing..
But to be a Celtic fan and Say you are ashamed of IT.. Especially considering everything that man went through.. You are "Ashamed" at him for expressing himself..
you are simply tired of ESPN (though you continue to check it obviously) but you are ashemed of IT.
Mindblowing.
-
I don't like it, but I don't like any of the singularly focused "theme" issues ESPN puts out. I like reading about sports.
Same thing with SI.
It doesn't offend me, but I do think it's a silly thing to make the leap topic on the ESPN website.
-
Yes, the human body is unnatural and we should all be ashamed and afraid of it because reasons.
Pretty much.
You don't like it, scroll passed it. Crisis solved.
-
lol all the robots sound the same. "its just the human body get over it." this is the defense argument people use when they have no defense. You can also make sex and violence acceptable. "its just sex!" "its just violence" "its just a cuss word"
I don't want to see ITs human body.. I want to see a game. With kids. We don't want perverted art. We want a game
Perfect analogy. Images of a body not covered in clothes is exactly the same as violence.
-
lol all the robots sound the same. "its just the human body get over it." this is the defense argument people use when they have no defense. You can also make sex and violence acceptable. "its just sex!" "its just violence" "its just a cuss word"
I don't want to see ITs human body.. I want to see a game. With kids. We don't want perverted art. We want a game
I mean, actually, ad hominems, like this one, are the arguments people use when they have no defense.
I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like it, then don't view it or let your kids view it. Don't try and dictate the values and "conceptions of the good" of other people.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
if espn started showing ****o during the day, these same people saying "its just the human body" would he justifying it by saying "its just sex! Who cares, don't look!"
Its ridiculous
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
Well that just isn't true at all. Don't go to ESPN.com and you won't see it.
It's also telling that there is no similar thread dedicated to the SI Swimsuit issue, which is much more ****ographic in its intent.
-
(http://yogadork.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/putin-on-a-horse-500x375.jpg)
-
No one is forcing you to look. I don't want to see that a**hole Lavar Ball either but it's not my website to control.
Usually these "ultimate arbiters of morality" who think that Disney is risque and that the human form is evil are the same ones who let their 9 year old kids stay up and watch the Walking Dead. I can feel the waves of hypocrisy from this thread. The only correct thing to do is to photobomb this thread into oblivion. So with that I present two glorious spectacles of the human form who are now both deceased.
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51686d6ae4b02d0863348ba0/516c8cb3e4b0f84b63114620/518bca60e4b04c0065d8b80e/1369800728012/Farley+and+Swayze.jpg?format=1000w)
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
But nobody is forcing you to go onto that sports page, so nobody is really forcing you to "look at naked butts." Nobody is violating your negative rights in this situation, because you're the one making the conscious choice to get on that privately-owned site.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
if espn started showing ****o during the day, these same people saying "its just the human body" would he justifying it by saying "its just sex! Who cares, don't look!"
Its ridiculous
Lol no. That's what you call a false analogy.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
No one is forcing you, so stop it. ESPN is running up to your house, holding you down and taping your eyes open shoving it in your face. It comes in the mail, you see A naked butt, you roll it up, toss it out. If you are seeing "Butts", then you are opening it up. Unless the cover has man athletes on it, then yes you see butts, but a few, and not many.
Also there is NO difference between IT's nude photo and the statue of David outside of medium, nothing. When I did my art classes we used nude models to learn about the human body. It's not "soft ****", theres no trusting,grinding or heavy petting. Most of it has hardly any sexual content in it. It's them doing there thing that makes them athletes. You go to an art gallery and see a nude painting of a woman thats fine, but a photo of an athlete covering the major bits, thats soft ****, give me a break.
Wilforck and Gronk did it too, wheres the body shaming with them? This is why woman can't breast feed in public with out having all these cover up contraptions. When I see a woman breast feeding, I look the other way and give get piece.
I do have to say, these photos are great for my art work. All the muscles moving how they should. I can make some nice super hero prints for the up coming shows. Thanks for the heads up on them. :)
-
sex sells
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
No one is forcing you, so stop it. ESPN is running up to your house, holding you down and taping your eyes open shoving it in your face. It comes in the mail, you see A naked butt, you roll it up, toss it out. If you are seeing "Butts", then you are opening it up. Unless the cover has man athletes on it, then yes you see butts, but a few, and not many.
Also there is NO difference between IT's nude photo and the statue of David outside of medium, nothing. When I did my art classes we used nude models to learn about the human body. It's not "soft ****", theres no trusting,grinding or heavy petting. Most of it has hardly any sexual content in it. It's them doing there thing that makes them athletes. You go to an art gallery and see a nude painting of a woman thats fine, but a photo of an athlete covering the major bits, thats soft ****, give me a break.
Wilforck and Gronk did it too, wheres the body shaming with them? This is why woman can't breast feed in public with out having all these cover up contraptions. When I see a woman breast feeding, I look the other way and give get piece.
I do have to say, these photos are great for my art work. All the muscles moving how they should. I can make some nice super hero prints for the up coming shows. Thanks for the heads up on them. :)
actually ESPN has exclusive rights to many NBA games, nfl games, mlb games, and NCAA games. So yea he's forced to watch espn if he wants to watch 99% of games today. Then the perverted body issue commercial comes on unannounced during the game, I've seen it in-game as well.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
-
I think the Body Issue is dumb and pointless, but I think you may be overreacting a bit concluding that this somehow showcases a lack of morals from ESPN.
I don't go to SI.com, but out of curiosity do they plaster their front page with bewbs during the month that the swimsuit edition comes out?
so 2 wrongs make a right?
I'm not getting what you are trying to imply there?
I'm just wondering if SI.com does the same thing or not; I don't recall people being as upset with the swimsuit edition as they are with the body issue, so I'm actually under the assumption that SI doesn't constantly plaster those images on their front page. I believe that the swimsuit edition is a separate annual magazine as opposed to taking up a regular magazine slot like ESPN does it, but again I don't use SI so I'm not certain/
You can go to SI.com and if you scroll down you will come to a section called Extra Mustard & SI Swim, which is far worse than anything you would find in the ESPN body issue. And for the record that section is on SI.com year round.
Here are the articles currently on it. The pictures don't show up, but two of them are a very attractive woman in lingerie and Emily Ratajkowski topless with her arm covering her breasts.
Extra Mustard & SI Swim
Extra Mustard
Weekend Hot Clicks: Demi Rose; Lonzo Ball's 'Worst Game Ever'
Weekend Hot Clicks feature the lovely Demi Rose and Lonzo Ball's 'Worst Game Ever'.
by Andrew Doughty
Extra Mustard
It's the anniversary of the biggest heel turn in wrestling history
Hulk Hogan joined the NWO on July 7, 1996.
by Jimmy Traina
Extra Mustard
Bruce Prichard previews WWE's Great Balls of Fire
by Justin Barrasso
Swim Daily
Emily Ratajkowski reveals why people won't work with her sometimes
by Kelsey Hendrix
Extra Mustard
5 sports-themed pool floats for summer
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
No one is forcing you, so stop it. ESPN is running up to your house, holding you down and taping your eyes open shoving it in your face. It comes in the mail, you see A naked butt, you roll it up, toss it out. If you are seeing "Butts", then you are opening it up. Unless the cover has man athletes on it, then yes you see butts, but a few, and not many.
Also there is NO difference between IT's nude photo and the statue of David outside of medium, nothing. When I did my art classes we used nude models to learn about the human body. It's not "soft ****", theres no trusting,grinding or heavy petting. Most of it has hardly any sexual content in it. It's them doing there thing that makes them athletes. You go to an art gallery and see a nude painting of a woman thats fine, but a photo of an athlete covering the major bits, thats soft ****, give me a break.
Wilforck and Gronk did it too, wheres the body shaming with them? This is why woman can't breast feed in public with out having all these cover up contraptions. When I see a woman breast feeding, I look the other way and give get piece.
I do have to say, these photos are great for my art work. All the muscles moving how they should. I can make some nice super hero prints for the up coming shows. Thanks for the heads up on them. :)
actually ESPN has exclusive rights to many NBA games, nfl games, mlb games, and NCAA games. So yea he's forced to watch espn if he wants to watch 99% of games today. Then the perverted body issue commercial comes on unannounced during the game, I've seen it in-game as well.
1. Notice how you wrote "if he wants to" because he has the choice not to do these things.
2. What you're claiming is false. ESPN isn't splashing pictures of naked bodies across the screen in the middle of basketball games and many beer commercials show as much skin as ESPN's Body Issue shows anyway. What we're talking about is, primarily, scrolling through the web site and those who get the paper magazine, which is easily tossed.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
..so is censorship not a form of the exact Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. you're trying to accuse people of here? It's one thing to say "it shouldn't be on TV or on the front page of ESPN", it's another to suggest that it's **** and shouldn't exist. Your freedoms do not extend to the point of censoring something just because you don't like it
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
That's not an argument anyone is making. If you want to get anywhere, refute people's actual points instead of this odd and non-existant opinions you seem to be trying to assign people
Literally no one is making you or your children go to ESPN's website, or withholding something like education if you don't
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
That's not an argument anyone is making. If you want to get anywhere, refute people's actual points instead of this odd and non-existant opinions you seem to be trying to assign people
Literally no one is making you or your children go to ESPN's website, or withholding something like education if you don't
Lol. A hypothetical in which a man's children will be denied education unless they view images of "naked butts." How are the ideas in this thread even being conjured up? A-plus content.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
..so is censorship not a form of the exact **** you're trying to accuse people of here? It's one thing to say "it shouldn't be on TV or on the front page of ESPN", it's another to suggest that it's **** and shouldn't exist. Your freedoms do not extend to the point of censoring something just because you don't like it
You clearly didn't read my post. I never once said this shouldn't exist. I said it shouldn't be on the front page where I don't have a choice to see it if I don't click something further. If they want to put a link with a less obscene version of it then great. Then I am not forced to see their butts, and people who choose to can do so.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
That's not an argument anyone is making. If you want to get anywhere, refute people's actual points instead of this odd and non-existant opinions you seem to be trying to assign people
Literally no one is making you or your children go to ESPN's website, or withholding something like education if you don't
Lol. A hypothetical in which a man's children will be denied education unless they view images of "naked butts." How are the ideas in this thread even being conjured up? A-plus content.
Misrepresentation of what I said. It's an analogy. The point being that no one expects to see that in a kids classroom. So to say don't look at ESPN if you don't want to see it isn't a fair argument. No one expects to see a bare arse when they log in to check sports scores and so that's not a fair suggestion. But yes, if it becomes common place to have to look at some man's butt every time I look into ESPN then yes I will no longer log into their site. Considering they need clicks to sell as, you'd think they could avoid losing more customers by not offending a big group of people. Based however on many of these posts, it's not near as big as I'd hoped.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
That's not an argument anyone is making. If you want to get anywhere, refute people's actual points instead of this odd and non-existant opinions you seem to be trying to assign people
Literally no one is making you or your children go to ESPN's website, or withholding something like education if you don't
Lol. A hypothetical in which a man's children will be denied education unless they view images of "naked butts." How are the ideas in this thread even being conjured up? A-plus content.
Exactly. Three pages worth.
Instead of my preferred hoops, all I can think about now is Sir Mix-A-Lot's immortal entreaty to all the world's girls in Baby Got Back.
I paraphrase:
You can do yo sidebends and you can do yo situps but, baby, please don't lose that butt.
And, upon said compliance, even white boys gotta shout. 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JphDdGV2TU
-
The Body articles aren't my preferred content, but they don't bother me.
I don't see the human body as gross or perverted, nor do I view it as automatically sexual. Sex is sexual. The Body photos tend to be more about musculature (or lack thereof in a few specific cases, like Prince Fielder). I don't see that as objectionable content.
Your mileage may vary.
-
The Body articles aren't my preferred content, but they don't bother me.
I don't see the human body as gross or perverted, nor do I view it as automatically sexual. Sex is sexual. The Body photos tend to be more about musculature (or lack thereof in a few specific cases, like Prince Fielder). I don't see that as objectionable content.
Your mileage may vary.
This is exactly right. I don't see this as art, really. The photography isn't artistic or particularly inspired in any way. But the lack of clothing doesn't automatically make something sexual. These "body issues" seem to be more about showcasing the variety of ways a body can look when its specialized to a certain sport. Which, to me, is a positive thing.
And I'll give someone a TP if they can find a previously existing thread complaining about the SI Swimsuit Issue, which is much more ****ographic in its intent.
-
Interesting this would come up now, as I just viewed an episode of a classic TV show on this very topic.
I'll give you three guesses where the show's main character, that learned, erudite champion of enlightened thought - Archie Bunker - came out on this issue. The first two don't count.
But I guess this is how we're gonna make America great again, eh? If only people were as interested in my 1st Amendment rights as they are my 2nd.
-
Its gross and obscene. People want to check sports scores with kids around have to explain things to kids.
What's there to explain?
It's the human body, athletes of all types (even amputees). There is no "nudity" in the sense of genitalia. There are no women's nipples or butt cracks. There is much worse in the SI swimsuit issue with the body paint and sheer/wet tops, yet that issue is often celebrated.
If you're worried your kids wanna rub one out to either magazine, chances are they are already using Jergens for the internet.
-
Its gross and obscene. People want to check sports scores with kids around have to explain things to kids.
What's there to explain?
It's the human body, athletes of all types (even amputees). There is no "nudity" in the sense of genitalia. There are no women's nipples or butt cracks. There is much worse in the SI swimsuit issue with the body paint and sheer/wet tops, yet that issue is often celebrated.
If you're worried your kids wanna rub one out to either magazine, chances are they are already using Jergens for the internet.
so why are there rated R movies if theres nothing to ever explain
-
Its gross and obscene. People want to check sports scores with kids around have to explain things to kids.
What's there to explain?
It's the human body, athletes of all types (even amputees). There is no "nudity" in the sense of genitalia. There are no women's nipples or butt cracks. There is much worse in the SI swimsuit issue with the body paint and sheer/wet tops, yet that issue is often celebrated.
If you're worried your kids wanna rub one out to either magazine, chances are they are already using Jergens for the internet.
TP!!
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
Does anyone think this issue (or any issue) is geared/intended for 7-year-olds? A 2nd grade elementary school classroom IS designed for just that, second-graders.
If you take your son into a public restroom and he sees one of those wall dispensers with condoms in it, are you gonna complain?
-
Its gross and obscene. People want to check sports scores with kids around have to explain things to kids.
What's there to explain?
It's the human body, athletes of all types (even amputees). There is no "nudity" in the sense of genitalia. There are no women's nipples or butt cracks. There is much worse in the SI swimsuit issue with the body paint and sheer/wet tops, yet that issue is often celebrated.
If you're worried your kids wanna rub one out to either magazine, chances are they are already using Jergens for the internet.
so why are there rated R movies if theres nothing to ever explain
I never said there's nothing to ever explain. If the Celtics win the championship, are you going to shield your kids eyes from their alcohol consumption in the locker room? I wouldn't want to have the conversation about the reprecusions of severe intoxication in that moment.
And are you comparing the body issue to an R-rated movie? I really don't think all R-rated movies are created equal, but that's another topic. I do recall Titanic getting a PG-13 rating while including a topless Kate Winslett and a sex scene in the back of a car, yet I don't recall much outrage.
-
Interesting this would come up now, as I just viewed an episode of a classic TV show on this very topic.
I'll give you three guesses where the show's main character, that learned, erudite champion of enlightened thought - Archie Bunker - came out on this issue. The first two don't count.
But I guess this is how we're gonna make America great again, eh? If only people were as interested in my 1st Amendment rights as they are my 2nd.
Not sure if you know this, but Archie Bunker was a fictional character?! ;D They really should do an interview with Homer Simpson to see where he stands on the matter...
And I am definitely interested in both of those rights along with all the others the Constitution affords you. I fully respect you having a different opinion on the issue and am fine with that. If you read the tone of the thread though it appears that many do not have that same respect and don't think I should have the right to believe as I do.
The main thing everyone needs to understand is that my rights END where they interfere with anothers. I have the right to view and act however I want in my own home. I don't however have the right to put up a ten foot TV on the side of my home and play offensive material and then say "Well if you don't like it just don't look". That takes YOUR rights away. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's something that many deem offensive and shouldn't be placed in an area that realistically doesn't allow people to avoid it. I wouldn't intentionally put something offensive to you up whether I personally thought it was offensive or not.
Let's be serious though. We no longer live in a country where free speech is really free. It's free speech as long as it doesn't have any possible offensive interpretation by anyone. I'm sure if they put a picture of the bible or the ten commandments in prominent position on the front of ESPN the arguments on here by many would change...
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
Does anyone think this issue (or any issue) is geared/intended for 7-year-olds? A 2nd grade elementary school classroom IS designed for just that, second-graders.
If you take your son into a public restroom and he sees one of those wall dispensers with condoms in it, are you gonna complain?
Do you really think that 7 year olds don't pull up ESPN to check out the baseball scores? And ESPN is designed for sports, not nudity... Just like a classroom is designed for children. And as an adult I know there are condom dispensers in bathrooms and can take appropriate measures as needed if I don't want them seeing that. Plus condom dispensers don't have nude pictures on them. If they did then yes I'd complain.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
Does anyone think this issue (or any issue) is geared/intended for 7-year-olds? A 2nd grade elementary school classroom IS designed for just that, second-graders.
If you take your son into a public restroom and he sees one of those wall dispensers with condoms in it, are you gonna complain?
I sincerely wish I had been shown those dispensers in my youth. Could've avoided a lot of headaches.
-
I feel like this complete nonissue is being made one. I can understand not liking or not caring for the particular content or whatever (I don't really care for it, I just want sports news), but to make such a fuss over it seems immature.
-
Interesting this would come up now, as I just viewed an episode of a classic TV show on this very topic.
I'll give you three guesses where the show's main character, that learned, erudite champion of enlightened thought - Archie Bunker - came out on this issue. The first two don't count.
But I guess this is how we're gonna make America great again, eh? If only people were as interested in my 1st Amendment rights as they are my 2nd.
Not sure if you know this, but Archie Bunker was a fictional character?! ;D They really should do an interview with Homer Simpson to see where he stands on the matter...
And I am definitely interested in both of those rights along with all the others the Constitution affords you. I fully respect you having a different opinion on the issue and am fine with that. If you read the tone of the thread though it appears that many do not have that same respect and don't think I should have the right to believe as I do.
The main thing everyone needs to understand is that my rights END where they interfere with anothers. I have the right to view and act however I want in my own home. I don't however have the right to put up a ten foot TV on the side of my home and play offensive material and then say "Well if you don't like it just don't look". That takes YOUR rights away. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's something that many deem offensive and shouldn't be placed in an area that realistically doesn't allow people to avoid it. I wouldn't intentionally put something offensive to you up whether I personally thought it was offensive or not.
Let's be serious though. We no longer live in a country where free speech is really free. It's free speech as long as it doesn't have any possible offensive interpretation by anyone. I'm sure if they put a picture of the bible or the ten commandments in prominent position on the front of ESPN the arguments on here by many would change...
As this thread indicates, along with current events, et al., dismissing Archie Bunker's world view as fictional is the same kind of naivete that would assume your reading preferences supersede others.
It comes as no surprise that you've consistently and belligerently missed a broader point others have tried to make: If you don't like the content, don't look at it. I can only assume that you just can't keep your eyes off ESPN. For some reason that I'll leave to others to speculate.
There also are some laughable contentions you've made about that content being **** that lead to some assumptions as well. Hope you never find true **** under the mattress of one of your kids.
-
I feel like this complete nonissue is being made one. I can understand not liking or not caring for the particular content or whatever (I don't really care for it, I just want sports news), but to make such a fuss over it seems immature.
So you agree with not really likng the fact that it's on a sports site, just think we should shut up about it and not voice our opinion.
My thinking is this. If YOU have an opinion on something that you feel matters, I'd prefer you spoke up about it. I promise not to call you names like immature, it insinuate that the topic is dumb. I might agree with you it I might not. I'll possibly post what I think about it to add to the discussion it give you a different point of view to maybe add to your own understanding. There will be however a bunch on here that tell you that you have no right to think the way you do and to shut up. I wish you luck though.
-
Interesting this would come up now, as I just viewed an episode of a classic TV show on this very topic.
I'll give you three guesses where the show's main character, that learned, erudite champion of enlightened thought - Archie Bunker - came out on this issue. The first two don't count.
But I guess this is how we're gonna make America great again, eh? If only people were as interested in my 1st Amendment rights as they are my 2nd.
Not sure if you know this, but Archie Bunker was a fictional character?! ;D They really should do an interview with Homer Simpson to see where he stands on the matter...
And I am definitely interested in both of those rights along with all the others the Constitution affords you. I fully respect you having a different opinion on the issue and am fine with that. If you read the tone of the thread though it appears that many do not have that same respect and don't think I should have the right to believe as I do.
The main thing everyone needs to understand is that my rights END where they interfere with anothers. I have the right to view and act however I want in my own home. I don't however have the right to put up a ten foot TV on the side of my home and play offensive material and then say "Well if you don't like it just don't look". That takes YOUR rights away. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's something that many deem offensive and shouldn't be placed in an area that realistically doesn't allow people to avoid it. I wouldn't intentionally put something offensive to you up whether I personally thought it was offensive or not.
Let's be serious though. We no longer live in a country where free speech is really free. It's free speech as long as it doesn't have any possible offensive interpretation by anyone. I'm sure if they put a picture of the bible or the ten commandments in prominent position on the front of ESPN the arguments on here by many would change...
As this thread indicates, along with current events, et al., dismissing Archie Bunker's world view as fictional is the same kind of naivete that would assume your reading preferences supersede others.
It comes as no surprise that you've consistently and belligerently missed a broader point others have tried to make: If you don't like the content, don't look at it. I can only assume that you just can't keep your eyes off ESPN. For some reason that I'll leave to others to speculate.
There also are some laughable contentions you've made about that content being **** that lead to some assumptions as well. Hope you never find true **** under the mattress of one of your kids.
[/quote
Love condescension. It sure makes people think so much more of you. Plus then you don't have to actually argue the points made. Clearly no one's rights or opinions matter to you but your own and everyone else's are laughable. I'll bow out from discussing it further with you your highness.
-
Then don't buy the issue, problem solved, or don't look at the pics.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
Does anyone think this issue (or any issue) is geared/intended for 7-year-olds? A 2nd grade elementary school classroom IS designed for just that, second-graders.
If you take your son into a public restroom and he sees one of those wall dispensers with condoms in it, are you gonna complain?
Do you really think that 7 year olds don't pull up ESPN to check out the baseball scores? And ESPN is designed for sports, not nudity... Just like a classroom is designed for children. And as an adult I know there are condom dispensers in bathrooms and can take appropriate measures as needed if I don't want them seeing that. Plus condom dispensers don't have nude pictures on them. If they did then yes I'd complain.
So your problem is really only with nudity, not shielding your children from adult-themed topics?
ESPN, by name, is the Entertainment and SPorts Network. They are, as you know, a business. That business is directed at predominantly males, probably aged 18-49 or whatever. So maybe kids will go on the site. Maybe women will. Maybe seniors will. Just because other people than the intended audience browse their website, doesn't make the body issue ****ographic. I really don't see how it's shocking to see a little skin on a website like ESPN's. And that's all it is, skin. If your children have so many questions about an uncovered torso or legs, maybe they are old enough to learn about them.
I don't see anything raunchy or particularly risqué about them. These are athletes who train dozens of hours a week to hone their craft, these aren't anorexic models or augmented "actresses."
-
I wonder what the page over/under on this thread is.
-
Thanks for the heads up, EJ. I go to the ESPN app on my phone every day, multiple times a day for summer league updates. I never saw anything about a "body issue." Thanks to your thread, though, I googled it and looked through the whole thing.
I thought it was great. Some beautiful bodies on there. Thanks again.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
Does anyone think this issue (or any issue) is geared/intended for 7-year-olds? A 2nd grade elementary school classroom IS designed for just that, second-graders.
If you take your son into a public restroom and he sees one of those wall dispensers with condoms in it, are you gonna complain?
Do you really think that 7 year olds don't pull up ESPN to check out the baseball scores? And ESPN is designed for sports, not nudity... Just like a classroom is designed for children. And as an adult I know there are condom dispensers in bathrooms and can take appropriate measures as needed if I don't want them seeing that. Plus condom dispensers don't have nude pictures on them. If they did then yes I'd complain.
So your problem is really only with nudity, not shielding your children from adult-themed topics?
ESPN, by name, is the Entertainment and SPorts Network. They are, as you know, a business. That business is directed at predominantly males, probably aged 18-49 or whatever. So maybe kids will go on the site. Maybe women will. Maybe seniors will. Just because other people than the intended audience browse their website, doesn't make the body issue ****ographic. I really don't see how it's shocking to see a little skin on a website like ESPN's. And that's all it is, skin. If your children have so many questions about an uncovered torso or legs, maybe they are old enough to learn about them.
I don't see anything raunchy or particularly risqué about them. These are athletes who train dozens of hours a week to hone their craft, these aren't anorexic models or augmented "actresses."
I think I've made it pretty clear I have a problem with nudity where it doesn't belong. If you showed up at your church and the walls were covered in these would you have the same response? I'm totally okay with doing a half cut out of some of these with a link to the full display. This solves everyone's problem. Nothing lost. Just protects those who don't want to see it. And they aren't just uncovered torsos and legs. They are full crack butt shots of men and women. Pubic areas that if they weren't completely shaved would be covered in hair. Complete breasts with just barely covering nipples. There is no reason they couldn't accomplish the same images showing off their muscles with tiny bathing suits on if that was their real intent. But it's not. It's to sensationalize things. And the solution is just not to show much of it unless you click the link. Someone please argue why that's such a huge trouble.
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
-
I mean it is pretty annoying. They should have it as a link on the side or smthing
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
It's not about winning. You are no more right than I am. And yes, when I have children I will be showing them naked bodies and teaching them that humans are Beautful and good. I would rather them not develop nerois' and have a healthy relationship with their bodies and the bodies of others.
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
It's not about winning. You are no more right than I am. And yes, when I have children I will be showing them naked bodies and teaching them that humans are Beautful and good. I would rather them not develop nerois' and have a healthy relationship with their bodies and the bodies of others.
But honestly, suck it. I hope the naked bodies of sports stars haunt your dreams. I hope your children are bombarded with images of amazing naked people. And most of all, I hope your children develop a healthy relationship with reality - despite you.
-
So, I just went to ESPN.com. I scrolled through about fifteen headlines on the front page before seeing an image of six naked women with hockey sticks. It was a fairly wide shot and it didn't show much in the way of "private parts." To see more, one would have to click on that headline and choose to watch the entire thing.
If one were insulted by it, I would assume that person would choose to scroll right past the "body issue" segment.
-
Honestly, I photoshopped parts on IT and had a good laugh with my pals over it in a group message. So I'm happy about the whole thing for that reason
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
It's not about winning. You are no more right than I am. And yes, when I have children I will be showing them naked bodies and teaching them that humans are Beautful and good. I would rather them not develop nerois' and have a healthy relationship with their bodies and the bodies of others.
But honestly, suck it. I hope the naked bodies of sports stars haunt your dreams. I hope your children are bombarded with images of amazing naked people. And most of all, I hope your children develop a healthy relationship with reality - despite you.
Hear, hear!!!!!!! In all my years on this forum, this is The GOAT post.
The conservatism of the OP is just more evidence of how despicable humans can be.
-
I feel like this complete nonissue is being made one. I can understand not liking or not caring for the particular content or whatever (I don't really care for it, I just want sports news), but to make such a fuss over it seems immature.
So you agree with not really likng the fact that it's on a sports site, just think we should shut up about it and not voice our opinion.
My thinking is this. If YOU have an opinion on something that you feel matters, I'd prefer you spoke up about it. I promise not to call you names like immature, it insinuate that the topic is dumb. I might agree with you it I might not. I'll possibly post what I think about it to add to the discussion it give you a different point of view to maybe add to your own understanding. There will be however a bunch on here that tell you that you have no right to think the way you do and to shut up. I wish you luck though.
I haven't read everyones post, but you, you're self are telling ESPN to think the way you do. When they post a pic, thats a view point. It's pa of the 1st amendment, so telling them they % of it shouldn't post pics of nudish sports figures is trying to get them to think the way they do. And that's your right, but it's also their right to post or print them.
You calling it soft **** is out of line, and saying it's different than the statue David the same, and that's not opinion, it's fact. Nude IT, art, depending on who you talk to. Basic Instinct, soft ****.
I had to scroll way down to find it. The way it was being presented it was all over the front page, and maybe the day it came out, it was. Thing is some of you are making it like you have to get all your sports info from ESPN. I might get 10% of it from them, use tradmachine and thats it. Most come from other sources. There are a lot of things and people(most whom I'm friend with) do or say things I don't care for. Hobby Lobby doesn't like gay marriage, but you know what, in my small town I can get the art supplies I need in a pinch there. But I don't raise a stink every time I walk through. Same with Chick Fila, don't necessarily like their views, but they make a good chicken sandwich that doesn't destroy my insides like McDonalds.
If your kid is too young for ESPN's Body, then they are too young to be on the internet unsupervised, or with out parental locks.
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
It's not about winning. You are no more right than I am. And yes, when I have children I will be showing them naked bodies and teaching them that humans are Beautful and good. I would rather them not develop nerois' and have a healthy relationship with their bodies and the bodies of others.
But honestly, suck it. I hope the naked bodies of sports stars haunt your dreams. I hope your children are bombarded with images of amazing naked people. And most of all, I hope your children develop a healthy relationship with reality - despite you.
And your true colors come out. Not surprised at your view then.
-
The strong emotions from both sides in this thread :laugh:
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
It's not about winning. You are no more right than I am. And yes, when I have children I will be showing them naked bodies and teaching them that humans are Beautful and good. I would rather them not develop nerois' and have a healthy relationship with their bodies and the bodies of others.
But honestly, suck it. I hope the naked bodies of sports stars haunt your dreams. I hope your children are bombarded with images of amazing naked people. And most of all, I hope your children develop a healthy relationship with reality - despite you.
Hear, hear!!!!!!! In all my years on this forum, this is The GOAT post.
The conservatism of the OP is just more evidence of how despicable humans can be.
Not wanting to have to look at someone's naked arse makes someone despicable?! And now somehow it is political?! LOL.
-
So, I just went to ESPN.com. I scrolled through about fifteen headlines on the front page before seeing an image of six naked women with hockey sticks. It was a fairly wide shot and it didn't show much in the way of "private parts." To see more, one would have to click on that headline and choose to watch the entire thing.
If one were insulted by it, I would assume that person would choose to scroll right past the "body issue" segment.
And as of this morning when I sent them the email and posted this the first two images on the page online were these pictures. If it was buried down there where you are correct it currently is then I doubt I would have said anything. Just don't make it the very first thing on the page like it was. Maybe my email actually did something. Doubt it though. Probably just a computed randomly rotating the stories.
-
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I am fed up with having to open up ESPN online and the first thing I see in large image are naked photos of men and women. What on Earth have we come to in society where this is okay?! How do we tolerate this? Don't want to hear the false argument that it is somehow art. It's soft core **** plain and simple. I shouldn't have to look over my shoulder when I'm logging in to check doors scores or stories to see if my children are behind me. Please do as I did and send an email to support@espn.com to voice your desire for them to get this crap off there. This is why their group is imploding. No values and loss of focus of why they're there.
I'm a fan of good looking naked women and **** so I think we disagree there. Now with all the tattoos yea not so cool! ;)
-
First person who disagrees with my premise and thinks it's perfectly fine that can tell me why placing a cropped version of a couple pics with the link to the full site is a problem gets 10 tommy points.
I bet you wouldn't tell african americans if they don't like the confederate flag just to not look at it... I don't find any offense in it, however I wouldn't fly one knowing it was offensive to others.
-
First person who disagrees with my premise and thinks it's perfectly fine that can tell me why placing a cropped version of a couple pics with the link to the full site is a problem gets 10 tommy points.
I bet you wouldn't tell african americans if they don't like the confederate flag just to not look at it... I don't find any offense in it, however I wouldn't fly one knowing it was offensive to others.
On my version of ESPN.COM, the full thing did not show up unless I clicked on a link. The cover photo for the link was one of the tamer ones of the whole segment.
Additionally, it was fairly far down on the main page. Do you have a different version of ESPN.COM where you are forced to look at every picture?
-
I don't find any offense in it, however I wouldn't fly one knowing it was offensive to others.
Keep in mind, non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals because they contain within them an element of personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, or abstention. This is sexual freedom so it's acceptable.
Personally, I think you're all a bit sensitive ;), though I agree with keeping this stuff out of the eyes of kids.
-
It's the human body, not ****. So you consider 'David' ****?
That's a different topic to a point, but I don't see statues of David on ESPN. This isn't art. It's trying to push extremes and filth. That's what Disney does anymore sadly. The human body should be covered, however at the least I shouldn't have to have that pop up in my face without choosing to go see it.
Just because YOU don't think it's art doesn't mean it isn't. You don't get to decide what's art for everyone else. You don't like it? Don't look and shut the heck up. When you have a problem with Disney then perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of your own squeamishness.
By the way, if you want to see filth I'm sure we can direct you to some more entertaining sites.
Right here is exactly the problem. They don't allow me the choice not to look at it. And to say shut the heck up is exactly what's wrong with things these days. You're all for freedom of expression and choice as long as they agree with you. If not then shut the heck up. People's freedom extends to the point that it takes away others freedoms. You can't choose to force your beliefs on others. I'm not trying to say you can't look at this if you choose to. I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to. So when I go on a sports page I shouldn't be forced to look at naked butts.
if espn started showing ****o during the day, these same people saying "its just the human body" would he justifying it by saying "its just sex! Who cares, don't look!"
Its ridiculous
Yes, it would be awful. Especially if the did it from July 24-27, when my wife is out of town. No, I most certainly would not watch it...
Mike
-
I don't find any offense in it, however I wouldn't fly one knowing it was offensive to others.
Keep in mind, non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals because they contain within them an element of personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, or abstention. This is sexual freedom so it's acceptable.
Personally, I think you're all snowflakes, though I agree with keeping this stuff out of the eyes of kids.
Can you explain which "non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals"? I'm curious.
-
I don't find any offense in it, however I wouldn't fly one knowing it was offensive to others.
Keep in mind, non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals because they contain within them an element of personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, or abstention. This is sexual freedom so it's acceptable.
Personally, I think you're all snowflakes, though I agree with keeping this stuff out of the eyes of kids.
Can you explain which "non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals"? I'm curious.
Economic freedom
right to carry
freedom of speech
to name a few.
-
I don't find any offense in it, however I wouldn't fly one knowing it was offensive to others.
Keep in mind, non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals because they contain within them an element of personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, or abstention. This is sexual freedom so it's acceptable.
Personally, I think you're all snowflakes, though I agree with keeping this stuff out of the eyes of kids.
Can you explain which "non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals"? I'm curious.
Economic freedom
right to carry
freedom of speech
to name a few.
Great, thanks. We must know different Liberals.
-
I don't find any offense in it, however I wouldn't fly one knowing it was offensive to others.
Keep in mind, non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by most Liberals because they contain within them an element of personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, or abstention. This is sexual freedom so it's acceptable.
Personally, I think you're all a bit sensitive ;), though I agree with keeping this stuff out of the eyes of kids.
Societal norms are changing. Swears are acceptable on TV now. The best show on TV (in my opinion) Game of Thrones uses the C-word willy nilly. People are dressing differently as well. Please tell me you have an issue with women wearing yoga pants b/c kids might see an upclose, descriptive image of a bottom....
I think it would be a good societal change if kids saw bodies as amazing tools for success. The sexual organs were covered. When you see bottoms, I see glutes, IT bands, hamstrings, etc. Maybe people are becoming de-sensitized, but I don't think its a bad thing. People in other countries seem to be more ok with public nudity.
There doesn't have to be a sexual thought when you see Edelman or the women's hockey team. It's ok to admire their body sculpting as art- the way ESPN intended it to be viewed.
-
What on Earth have we come to in society where this is okay?!
I have some bad news for you about the ancient Greeks' norms for athletic contests.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
Does anyone think this issue (or any issue) is geared/intended for 7-year-olds? A 2nd grade elementary school classroom IS designed for just that, second-graders.
If you take your son into a public restroom and he sees one of those wall dispensers with condoms in it, are you gonna complain?
Do you really think that 7 year olds don't pull up ESPN to check out the baseball scores? And ESPN is designed for sports, not nudity... Just like a classroom is designed for children. And as an adult I know there are condom dispensers in bathrooms and can take appropriate measures as needed if I don't want them seeing that. Plus condom dispensers don't have nude pictures on them. If they did then yes I'd complain.
So your problem is really only with nudity, not shielding your children from adult-themed topics?
ESPN, by name, is the Entertainment and SPorts Network. They are, as you know, a business. That business is directed at predominantly males, probably aged 18-49 or whatever. So maybe kids will go on the site. Maybe women will. Maybe seniors will. Just because other people than the intended audience browse their website, doesn't make the body issue ****ographic. I really don't see how it's shocking to see a little skin on a website like ESPN's. And that's all it is, skin. If your children have so many questions about an uncovered torso or legs, maybe they are old enough to learn about them.
I don't see anything raunchy or particularly risqué about them. These are athletes who train dozens of hours a week to hone their craft, these aren't anorexic models or augmented "actresses."
I think I've made it pretty clear I have a problem with nudity where it doesn't belong. If you showed up at your church and the walls were covered in these would you have the same response? I'm totally okay with doing a half cut out of some of these with a link to the full display. This solves everyone's problem. Nothing lost. Just protects those who don't want to see it. And they aren't just uncovered torsos and legs. They are full crack butt shots of men and women. Pubic areas that if they weren't completely shaved would be covered in hair. Complete breasts with just barely covering nipples. There is no reason they couldn't accomplish the same images showing off their muscles with tiny bathing suits on if that was their real intent. But it's not. It's to sensationalize things. And the solution is just not to show much of it unless you click the link. Someone please argue why that's such a huge trouble.
Um, have you see the Sistine Chapel? The entire place is basically full of nudity.
But again, why are you comparing churches (and classrooms) to an entertainment website? The purpose of their website is to generate clicks. Posting a headline for the body issue vs showing a picture will not generate nearly as many clicks. They are a business. They aren't even a very good one. I'm not a fan of ESPN (I only watch for C's games, and no longer subscribe to the magazine, which I only did for insider when I cared enough), but I don't have a problem with them countering the very successful swimsuit issue from SI with this. It seems natural, as most of them are posing in relation to their sport.
I get your frustration, but this is the internet. If you're worried about them seeing some side boob or where upper pubic hair could be grown on espn, you better keep them away from the internet altogether. I've seen way worse on social media, let alone the ad banners that pop up on various websites.
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
It's not about winning. You are no more right than I am. And yes, when I have children I will be showing them naked bodies and teaching them that humans are Beautful and good. I would rather them not develop nerois' and have a healthy relationship with their bodies and the bodies of others.
But honestly, suck it. I hope the naked bodies of sports stars haunt your dreams. I hope your children are bombarded with images of amazing naked people. And most of all, I hope your children develop a healthy relationship with reality - despite you.
Hear, hear!!!!!!! In all my years on this forum, this is The GOAT post.
The conservatism of the OP is just more evidence of how despicable humans can be.
Not wanting to have to look at someone's naked arse makes someone despicable?! And now somehow it is political?! LOL.
Yes. To classify you as a human being would profane humanity.
-
This is dumb. All so very dumb.
People are naked when they don't have clothes. Nothing disgusting about it.
Oppositely, if people want to be weirded out or disgusted by naked bodies, all the power to you.
The body issue is something that explores the different forms of human achievement. Beautiful expressions of accomplishment. These people's bodies are their temples and they are proud of their amazing form.
You have choice. Don't look if you don't want to see.
What is bad about children seeing a nude body? They look at one everyday, their own. Teach them that these bodies they see are what hard work and perseverance looks like. It's positive.
Great. Then how about we parade naked men through your teenage daughters showers in the locker room and tell her "it's okay. People are naked when they have no clothes. Nothing disgusting about it". See, you don't want to discuss the topic, just create an alternative discussion because you can't win the one that was being discussed.
It's not about winning. You are no more right than I am. And yes, when I have children I will be showing them naked bodies and teaching them that humans are Beautful and good. I would rather them not develop nerois' and have a healthy relationship with their bodies and the bodies of others.
But honestly, suck it. I hope the naked bodies of sports stars haunt your dreams. I hope your children are bombarded with images of amazing naked people. And most of all, I hope your children develop a healthy relationship with reality - despite you.
Hear, hear!!!!!!! In all my years on this forum, this is The GOAT post.
The conservatism of the OP is just more evidence of how despicable humans can be.
Not wanting to have to look at someone's naked arse makes someone despicable?! And now somehow it is political?! LOL.
Yes. To classify you as a human being would profane humanity.
And WHERE are the moderators? You need to brush up on the rules.
-
It's the expectation of what you will see somewhere. To make the point here's an extreme example. If I go into a 2nd grade elementary school class I do not expect to see a risque picture of a lady in a swimsuit. Using the argument " well it's the human body, or if you don't like it don't send your kids to school. Stupid argument.
Does anyone think this issue (or any issue) is geared/intended for 7-year-olds? A 2nd grade elementary school classroom IS designed for just that, second-graders.
If you take your son into a public restroom and he sees one of those wall dispensers with condoms in it, are you gonna complain?
Do you really think that 7 year olds don't pull up ESPN to check out the baseball scores? And ESPN is designed for sports, not nudity... Just like a classroom is designed for children. And as an adult I know there are condom dispensers in bathrooms and can take appropriate measures as needed if I don't want them seeing that. Plus condom dispensers don't have nude pictures on them. If they did then yes I'd complain.
So your problem is really only with nudity, not shielding your children from adult-themed topics?
ESPN, by name, is the Entertainment and SPorts Network. They are, as you know, a business. That business is directed at predominantly males, probably aged 18-49 or whatever. So maybe kids will go on the site. Maybe women will. Maybe seniors will. Just because other people than the intended audience browse their website, doesn't make the body issue ****ographic. I really don't see how it's shocking to see a little skin on a website like ESPN's. And that's all it is, skin. If your children have so many questions about an uncovered torso or legs, maybe they are old enough to learn about them.
I don't see anything raunchy or particularly risqué about them. These are athletes who train dozens of hours a week to hone their craft, these aren't anorexic models or augmented "actresses."
I think I've made it pretty clear I have a problem with nudity where it doesn't belong. If you showed up at your church and the walls were covered in these would you have the same response? I'm totally okay with doing a half cut out of some of these with a link to the full display. This solves everyone's problem. Nothing lost. Just protects those who don't want to see it. And they aren't just uncovered torsos and legs. They are full crack butt shots of men and women. Pubic areas that if they weren't completely shaved would be covered in hair. Complete breasts with just barely covering nipples. There is no reason they couldn't accomplish the same images showing off their muscles with tiny bathing suits on if that was their real intent. But it's not. It's to sensationalize things. And the solution is just not to show much of it unless you click the link. Someone please argue why that's such a huge trouble.
Um, have you see the Sistine Chapel? The entire place is basically full of nudity.
But again, why are you comparing churches (and classrooms) to an entertainment website? The purpose of their website is to generate clicks. Posting a headline for the body issue vs showing a picture will not generate nearly as many clicks. They are a business. They aren't even a very good one. I'm not a fan of ESPN (I only watch for C's games, and no longer subscribe to the magazine, which I only did for insider when I cared enough), but I don't have a problem with them countering the very successful swimsuit issue from SI with this. It seems natural, as most of them are posing in relation to their sport.
I get your frustration, but this is the internet. If you're worried about them seeing some side boob or where upper pubic hair could be grown on espn, you better keep them away from the internet altogether. I've seen way worse on social media, let alone the ad banners that pop up on various websites.
Good points. We definitely do our best with filters and such. This is where I have the issue though. Filters aren't going to catch ESPN as being an issue. Or at least they shouldn't . Kind of funny on here how trying to keep adult themed images out of the eyes of children would be met with such ridicule. At least you are trying to discuss and make valid points. TP to you for your thoughtful comments!