Why ESPN’s Body Issue could have been great but doesn’t quite succeed
There’s a lot I appreciate about ESPN’s Body Issue–the primary thing being Danell Leyva.
I’m all for admiring “the vast potential of the human form,” I love seeing naked bodies, and as someone who is endlessly irritated that female athletes are sexualized more than men are, I think it’s great to have a chance to “gawk” at beautiful athletes of both genders. Of course, the range of types of bodies celebrated in the issue is pretty narrow–someone like Sarah Robles is, unsurprisingly, not featured. (Although I’m super excited they included paralympic athlete Oskana Masters being totally badass.)
In a culture in which women’s bodies are typically valued for being passive objects that are nice to look at, admiring female athletes’ bodies for being active agents that are nice to look at has the potential to be a truly great thing. Not that bodies should only be valued for what they can do, of course, but I think most athletes do have that kind of utilitarian relationship to their bodies. And as a former athlete, one of the reasons I think women’s sports are so important is the sense of ownership you gain from seeing your body as a tool that is yours to perfect and push and challenge. Abby Wambach put it best in her interview: “If you’re an athlete and you’ve worked your whole life on your body, your body becomes your machine.”
And some of the women’s photos in this year’s Body Issue capture that wonderfully. Wambach’s photo, for example, is great:
But, some of them are more like this. Here’s the #2 ranked women’s golfer in the world (strikethrough)hitting a tee shot(/strikethrough) chillin’ on the beach.
...
Interesting stats at link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Although I would have passed on the smiley pillow. 
Against sexist Olympic advertising
In the qualifying tournaments leading up to the 2012 London Games, two of the U.K.’s beach volleyball players had their butts sponsored by advertisers. Yes, you saw right, advertisers paid to have their Q.R. codes pasted on the players’ bikini bottoms. And if the image of someone watching the TV with a smart phone in hand trying to snap a picture of that doesn’t gross you out already, this Q.R. code takes the viewer straight to a gambling website. Not that if the code took the viewer to a website for charity would I find it any better, but come on, could you make it any easier to bash on this advertising choice? What does gambling have to do with volleyball?
*
“over half of the female athletes were shown only as passive eye-candy while virtually all of the men were shown in action shots:
78 percent of the photos of men depict an active pose, while only 52 percent of women’s do.
90 percent of the male athletes had at least least one active pose in the slideshow.
46 percent of female athletes had at least one active pose in the slideshow.”
The issue stays true to sexist sports coverage form by showing men primarily as powerful athletes and female athletes as demure sex symbols. Way to reinforce the idea that women only use exercise to have bodies that feed into the male gaze. And, naturally the athletes chosen are women that fit stereotypical conventions of beauty.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the “Body Issue” did a couple things right—like featuring paralympic rowing athlete Oskana Masters and, sigh, badass soccer heartthrob Abby Wambach*. But come on, ESPN, could you please make this issue less about trying to make these fiercely strong female athletes look like passive, male-gaze models and spend more time focusing on how talented these women are? Thanks.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/24/douchebag_decree_salpart/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
but I appreciate your input and IMO it was very respectfully phrased.
Thanks 
