I am not a prude

[Darrell KSR]

My kids don't have curfews by the time they are juniors in high school.

I have taken them to see movies that were supposed to be above their age maturity.

Not a big deal for them to be around alcohol.

All of these things my wife and I try to teach them about "life," and know they will be around it. I know many disagree with our approach of moderation and such, but we believe in it.

So why does the latest ESPN the magazine bother me so much?

My 12-year old son is a subscriber. This month's issue went into the trash. I thought the nude athletes were "too nude," distasteful, and inappropriate for a 12-year old. Don't know if you have seen it, but it was filled with numerous nude athletes. Worse than SI swimsuit issue.

Call me a prude. I found it inappropriate and was very disappointed that arrived in our mailbox.

[BigBlueBrock]

Is ESPN The Magazine's target audience 12-year-olds? Doubtful (as a matter of fact, ESPN The Magazine's editor-in-chief has said the target audience is 18-34-year-old males (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=5710213)). I actually disagree about it being worse than the SI Swimsuit Issue. I, too, am a subscriber to ESPN The Magazine thanks to my ESPN Insider account, so I received a copy the same as you. I found the pictorial to be tasteful and more artistic than the SI Swimsuit Issue, which is more blatant objectification than appreciation of the body as an art form. Were you surprised to have received it? It's the fifth annual special issue and past issues have featured Serena Williams, the entire USA women's water polo team, Blake Griffin, and Rob Gronkowski (http://www.policymic.com/articles/53695/the-32-best-photos-ever-from-espn-s-the-body-issue).

As for why it bothers you so much, especially when you find it more objectionable than the SI Swimsuit Issue? No clue. My generation is much more OK with nudity than yours, though, so maybe that's why there's a disconnect. Maybe it's the inclusion of male athletes or the fact that the bodies seem more "real" than those of supermodels we're used to seeing? It's an interesting question.

By the way, if he hasn't already, he will soon be introduced to the wide world of free internet porn by friends/school mates. And I can tell you, from my own personal experience as a teenager with internet access BEFORE there was so much FREE pornography, you're not going to be able to stop him from looking at it.

[Doc]

I think it was John Wall's tats that took it too far!

[Darrell KSR]

Is ESPN The Magazine's target audience 12-year-olds? Doubtful (as a matter of fact, ESPN The Magazine's editor-in-chief has said the target audience is 18-34-year-old males (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=5710213)).

Who cares who the "target audience" is? So they don't sell to under 18 or over 34? If they limit their sales to their "target audience," that argument makes sense. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. (I have two subscriptions--both hitting outside their "target audience.")


I actually disagree about it being worse than the SI Swimsuit Issue. I, too, am a subscriber to ESPN The Magazine thanks to my ESPN Insider account, so I received a copy the same as you. I found the pictorial to be tasteful and more artistic than the SI Swimsuit Issue, which is more blatant objectification than appreciation of the body as an art form.

Well, we're not going to agree here. My wife and I both looked at it, and came to the same independent conclusion. She's not thrilled with the SI issue either, though.




As for why it bothers you so much, especially when you find it more objectionable than the SI Swimsuit Issue? No clue. My generation is much more OK with nudity than yours, though, so maybe that's why there's a disconnect. Maybe it's the inclusion of male athletes or the fact that the bodies seem more "real" than those of supermodels we're used to seeing? It's an interesting question.

It could be the "reality" issue you identified. Entirely possible that my world has become numb to supermodels and this was more real. I don't know that to be the case, but won't dispute it.


By the way, if he hasn't already, he will soon be introduced to the wide world of free internet porn by friends/school mates. And I can tell you, from my own personal experience as a teenager with internet access BEFORE there was so much FREE pornography, you're not going to be able to stop him from looking at it.

Well, trust me here--you won't be able to tell me anything I don't already know. I have five kids; he's the 5th. That's a long line of experience. ;)

[badrose]

Darrell, I've known you for quite a while so, I know you're not a prude. Not having seen the issue I'm intrigued by the aspects of the shots (all, or just a few specific ones?) that you found offensive. What I have seen of what BBB linked all of those are "implied" nudes i.e. no naughty bits shown although one or two I thought drew undue attention to the genital area and somewhat suggestive so I would call them borderline.

[BigBlueBrock]

Who cares who the "target audience" is? So they don't sell to under 18 or over 34? If they limit their sales to their "target audience," that argument makes sense. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. (I have two subscriptions--both hitting outside their "target audience.")

Well, it matters when deeming something appropriate vs inappropriate. Many (read: most) prime time network television shows are targeted towards 18-34 year olds (we buy a lot of stuff) and are sometimes inappropriate for younger audiences, but I don't often see people blocking CBS or writing letters to NBC in a huff about what they televised during Person of Interest or Law and Order: SVU.


Well, we're not going to agree here. My wife and I both looked at it, and came to the same independent conclusion. She's not thrilled with the SI issue either, though.

It's a generational gap, which is fine. :eclipsee_Victoria:


It could be the "reality" issue you identified. Entirely possible that my world has become numb to supermodels and this was more real. I don't know that to be the case, but won't dispute it.


I actually think this kind of depiction of the human body is fantastic. But that's just me personally.


Well, trust me here--you won't be able to tell me anything I don't already know. I have five kids; he's the 5th. That's a long line of experience. ;)

Haha, fair enough.

[Darrell KSR]

It was overwhelming in sheer numbers and degrees. My concern is for a 12-year old, and not for me, of course. There were many that drew attention to the genital area.


Darrell, I've known you for quite a while so, I know you're not a prude. Not having seen the issue I'm intrigued by the aspects of the shots (all, or just a few specific ones?) that you found offensive. What I have seen of what BBB linked all of those are "implied" nudes i.e. no naughty bits shown although one or two I thought drew undue attention to the genital area and somewhat suggestive so I would call them borderline.

[Darrell KSR]

Well, it matters when deeming something appropriate vs inappropriate. Many (read: most) prime time network television shows are targeted towards 18-34 year olds (we buy a lot of stuff) and are sometimes inappropriate for younger audiences, but I don't often see people blocking CBS or writing letters to NBC in a huff about what they televised during Person of Interest or Law and Order: SVU.

I can't buy that argument. If it's inappropriate to a 35-year old, a 17-year old, or someone else they sell to, even though their internal "target audience" is a specific subset of their sales, it's inappropriate. You are trying to say, "It's not inappropriate to a specific area of their sales." Fine, that can be debated. Expanding that to "it's not inappropriate" is logically inconsistent.



It's a generational gap, which is fine. :eclipsee_Victoria:

My wife is 23. How much younger are you than she?

:)

Just kidding, lol. But I don't see this is a generational issue. My wife and I are both fine with nudity in general, and as art. We have seen it in theatre, in painting, and in other areas, and are good with it. Then again, I don't take my 12-year old to the theatre to see Hair! But I have allowed my 16-year old daughter to be in it (non-nude part). So I think your "generational gap" argument is just too broad a brush.

[BigBlueBrock]

Just kidding, lol. But I don't see this is a generational issue. My wife and I are both fine with nudity in general, and as art. We have seen it in theatre, in painting, and in other areas, and are good with it. Then again, I don't take my 12-year old to the theatre to see Hair! But I have allowed my 16-year old daughter to be in it (non-nude part). So I think your "generational gap" argument is just too broad a brush.

Well it's not a gap in what we are OK with seeing as adults, but what we feel is appropriate for a 12-year-old to see. I don't see a problem with a pubescent kid seeing human nudity portrayed in the manner of ESPN The Body.

[Darrell KSR]

Maybe right there, BBB. There is another view, too, and I confess, I don't know which it is. Before I had a 12-year old, I might've said the same thing you just did. So it might not be a generational issue as much as a "bam, it's here; the hypothetical has turned into real" issue, too. But you could be right about it being generational, as well (or exclusively.)

[CitizenBBN]

Well, it matters when deeming something appropriate vs inappropriate. Many (read: most) prime time network television shows are targeted towards 18-34 year olds (we buy a lot of stuff) and are sometimes inappropriate for younger audiences, but I don't often see people blocking CBS or writing letters to NBC in a huff about what they televised during Person of Interest or Law and Order: SVU.


Not really. the marketing target age group has nothing to do with the tv rules on what is shown. It is in fact done by age, the assumption being that shows after 10pm will have kids in bed and can be a little more liberal in their use of language and nudity and violence. A show can choose to target any age group it chooses on any channel, and on cable we see a broad array of targets in the same time slots, but what they can show isn't based on who they are targeting but by their availability to children based on time and whether they are subscription based.

In fact TV is a great example in Darrell's favor, b/c ESPN puts itself out there as an openly available product with no age restrictions in sales or orders, the print media equivalent of a basic cable prime time or afternoon program. They can't then include after 10pm or in this case maybe after 12am content just b/c they figure most readers are in their 20s and 30s. well they "can", but they're definitely thumbing their nose at the long held standard of maintaining a level of media decorum based on accessibility by children.

[Doc]

I've never really got the SI swimsuit issue. To me its nothing more than soft porn, sort of like the Victoria Secret catalog that guys oddle over. Not sure how supermodels in swimsuits translates to SPORTS as in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED.

As for ESPN, seems that demographics is the younger audience. My hunch is this issue was an PR stunt that apparently worked

[CitizenBBN]

I've never really got the SI swimsuit issue. To me its nothing more than soft porn,

I'd say you got it perfectly. :)

[BigBlueBrock]

I've never really got the SI swimsuit issue. To me its nothing more than soft porn, sort of like the Victoria Secret catalog that guys oddle over. Not sure how supermodels in swimsuits translates to SPORTS as in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED.

As for ESPN, seems that demographics is the younger audience. My hunch is this issue was an PR stunt that apparently worked

It's a four-year-old "PR stunt."

[jazyd]

Darrell don't buy the arguement that all in a certain age range thinks this magazine is fine and that it is all about generations. There are many young adults and teens that actually think like you and do believe in morals and not the anything goes attitude of some. I asked the 5 girls who work for us, range in age from 17 to 25, what they thought. None liked it and said their friends didnt. So I asked the two cart girls at the golf course today, both will be first year teachers next month and got the same answer, both have tattoes and both said they didn't attend church. All said the idea had nothing to do with sports and should not have been sent to a 12 yr old

All the girls by the way, with one exception, are very good looking

[CitizenBBN]

All the girls by the way, with one exception, are very good looking

This thread is now useless without PICTURES!!!!! :D

[BigBlueBrock]

It's not like ESPN knew they were sending it to a 12-year-old. You do have to have a valid credit card to sign up for ESPN Insider or ESPN The Magazine, after all. It's also not like this is a one-off issue of The Magazine (it is, in fact, the fifth such iteration).

Also, had to chuckle at the "believe in morals and not the anything goes attitude of some." Right, because I choose not to engage in body shaming, I guess that makes me immoral.

[jazyd]

I keep telling the 5'8" brunette cart girl she didnt need the ink as she is good looking and has a terrific body, they are natural :) she knows I am old and harmless


This thread is now useless without PICTURES!!!!! :D

[CitizenBBN]

Also, had to chuckle at the "believe in morals and not the anything goes attitude of some." Right, because I choose not to engage in body shaming, I guess that makes me immoral.

If you don't like that I'm sure we can get you on something else. ;)

In fairness, some bodies really should be shamed. Mine leaps out as a great example...

[Doc]

I'd say you got it perfectly. :)

Then change the name of the magazine for one week to SPI (soft porn illustrated), and put in a centerfold, a forum and a "turn on/turn off" section , then call it a day

[BigBlueBrock]

Then change the name of the magazine for one week to SPI (soft porn illustrated), and put in a centerfold, a forum and a "turn on/turn off" section , then call it a day

Pretty sure SI Swimsuit has a centerfold. Couldn't say for sure, however, as it's been a while since I leafed through an issue.

[Doc]

Pretty sure SI Swimsuit has a centerfold. Couldn't say for sure, however, as it's been a while since I leafed through an issue.

Or because the pages are stuck together

[BigBlueBrock]

Or because the pages are stuck together
:sHa_clap2:

[Doc]

:sHa_clap2:

Lol, but that was not the hand movement I was thinking!

[jgirl]

Lol, but that was not the hand movement I was thinking!

What you use it for is your own business :friendly_wink:

Obviously they are all impressive (even Gary Player, given his age) and most of them are tastfully done. Vernon Davis with the footballs and John Wall in the bath tub were a little tacky though, IMO

[MickintheHam]

I believe if it is presented in the context of studying the body, it's ok for a 12 year old. I have not seen the magazine, but did see plenty of pics on ESPN. I believe it is on target with where society is today.

I don't buy the generational argument. I remember as a 13 or 14 year old kid, the guys in school who had access to Playboy (and much much worse) in their homes. If one percent of adolescents have access to this material, it is shared with 50%. What is different today is girls and porn. It barely existed back in the day. Today, the young girls seem to do a lot of looking.

I think putting the magazine in the trash will only raise curiosity. He will be asking his friends who do have the magazine, if they have not already shared it. Sometimes its easier to provide access to the material and have a discussion about it.

[BigBlueBrock]

I agree with what Mick said.

[badrose]

Obviously they are all impressive (even Gary Player, given his age) and most of them are tastfully done. Vernon Davis with the footballs and John Wall in the bath tub were a little tacky though, IMO

That was my take exactly.

[UKHistory]

Have not looked at the magazine and had not really thought about it.

Bottom line is that Darrell and his wife make a decision about how to raise their kids. I won't call him a prude. I have to look at it now to figure what is up with the article.

[KSRBEvans]

I just saw the ESPN issue in my mailbox, and leafed through it. Gary Player--wow, I hope I'm breathing at his age, much less in his shape.

The ESPN issue shows more skin, but I find what SI is doing more objectionable. You know what you're getting with the ESPN issues; it's naked athletes. But the swimsuit issues, especially in recent years, are more "swimsuit" issues. Lots of poses with only part of a swimsuit, or no swimsuit at all (body paint anyone?).

I'm far from a prude on this stuff, and my kids are in their 20s now. I'd just like to see a little truth in advertising, so to speak.