Make no mistake about it, it is religion that has instilled this feeling of shame about our nakedness
WARNING
This blog does contain adult and gay material. If you are under your country's legal age (18 or 21), do not scroll down and leave this page now.
Thanks
Throughout history the issue of clothing has gone from necessity to luxury, from protection from the elements to sexual repression.
When you come right down to it, clothing is and should be necessary only when they have a useful purpose…like protecting you from the elements. Any other use for clothing is superfluous and arbitrary…and I am very resolute in this; can you think of a more useless article of clothing than a tie?
Most of this fabricated shame we all feel about nakedness stems from that fucking fairy tale that is found in the Scriptures about Adam and Eve. You see, there is no fucking way that only two specimens of the human family could have been our ancestors, not if you believe in evolution. But I digress…the idea that these two fucker breeders found themselves in paradise after biting into the mother fucking apple…(which according to scientists couldn’t have been an apple but a persimmon) then these had sex and God told them to feel ashamed of the deed they had just partaken in and told them to feel ashamed of their bodies, their nakedness. Such absurdity can only exist in the minds of religious fanatics but unfortunately it has percolated on down to the general population and to popular culture throughout history.
Sean Lamont – Dieux du Stade
ESPN's Naked Athletes: Heavenly Bodies, Queasy Christians
Christians adore sports, always have, and always will. Saint Paul was no jock, but he knew the importance of athletics to the Greco-Roman world around him, and the relevance of sports to the life of faith:
"Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win," the Apostle exhorted his listeners in Corinth. "Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."
Powerful words, which later believers took literally. From the YMCA movement and the birth of "muscular Christianity" in the 19th century, to the professional gladiators of today’s sports -- praying to win and profusely thanking Jesus when they do -- athletes and the faith have been soul mates.
But will Christians still love their sports heroes (and heroines) if they go stark naked? That question is starting to stir debate among Christian sports fans (the term may be redundant) as ESPN the Magazineprepares its first-ever "Body Issue"-- the bodies in question being those of world-class athletes who have volunteered to take it all off for a photographer, and the 2.1 million readers (and counting) of the bi-weekly.
The issue hit the newsstands on Oct. 9, 2008 with the list of participating athletes still a mystery. Editor-in-chief Gary Belsky told USA Todayin June that the magazine invited pro, amateur and Olympic athletes, but would only say their response has been enthusiastic. (IndyCar driver Danica Patrick, who has appeared in numerous magazine shoots showing off her form, is rumored to be one of the subjects. But there will be male athletes as well.)
Still, those early reports quickly raised some eyebrows in Christian fandom.
"Nudity is the most over-ridden pony in mass media," sports columnist and onetime missionary Ted Kluck wrote in an "open letter" to ESPN published on the Web site of Christianity Today, the flagship evangelical magazine.
Kluck said he was not surprised, just disappointed. "Upsetting the prudish is part of the devil-may-care outlaw/renegade ethos that helps you sell big trucks and Viagra. I respect that," he wrote to ESPN. "But really? Nudity?" (Kluck also quoted Paul, who counseled focusing the mind on "Whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, and whatever is admirable...")
Comments on Kluck's post tended to agree with him--though few echoed his larger point, a plea for better sports writing. "This is a prime example of where our country is morally and one of the reasons it is being bombarded by the minor wrath of God," wrote one commenter. Another threatened to cancel his son's subscription. Still another wrote: "I hope this will succeed in remedying ESPN's inhuman vulgarity." (The main objection was to Kluck's dig at big trucks.)
So will this cause ESPN to reconsider? Not likely, given the success of the annual swimsuit issue of ESPN's main competitor, Sports Illustrated. The SI edition of models clad in bikinis (or less) has come out each February for 36 years and now generates up to 9 percent of the weekly's yearly revenue, reaching some 66 million adults. The 55-year-old Sports Illustratedstill outsells ESPN's 11-year-old magazine, 3.2 million to 2.1 million, though ESPN the Magazine is reportedly gaining. ESPN's "Body Issue" could be seen as a savvy upgrade on SI's swimsuit issue.
A spokesperson for ESPN the Magazine insists that the "Body Issue" is not intended as a beef-and-cheesecake alternative to SI's swimsuit issue, and is rather "a celebration of the athletic form."
But will Christians still love their sports heroes (and heroines) if they go stark naked? That question is starting to stir debate among Christian sports fans (the term may be redundant) as ESPN the Magazineprepares its first-ever "Body Issue"-- the bodies in question being those of world-class athletes who have volunteered to take it all off for a photographer, and the 2.1 million readers (and counting) of the bi-weekly. The issue hit the newsstands on Oct. 9, 2008 with the list of participating athletes still a mystery. Editor-in-chief Gary Belsky told USA Todayin June that the magazine invited pro, amateur and Olympic athletes, but would only say their response has been enthusiastic. (IndyCar driver Danica Patrick, who has appeared in numerous magazine shoots showing off her form, is rumored to be one of the subjects. But there will be male athletes as well.)
Still, those early reports quickly raised some eyebrows in Christian fandom. "Nudity is the most over-ridden pony in mass media," sports columnist and onetime missionary Ted Kluck wrote in an "open letter" to ESPN published on the Web site of Christianity Today, the flagship evangelical magazine.
Kluck said he was not surprised, just disappointed. "Upsetting the prudish is part of the devil-may-care outlaw/renegade ethos that helps you sell big trucks and Viagra. I respect that," he wrote to ESPN. "But really? Nudity?" (Kluck also quoted Paul, who counseled focusing the mind on "Whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, and whatever is admirable...")
Comments on Kluck's post tended to agree with him--though few echoed his larger point, a plea for better sports writing. "This is a prime example of where our country is morally and one of the reasons it is being bombarded by the minor wrath of God," wrote one commenter. Another threatened to cancel his son's subscription. Still another wrote: "I hope this will succeed in remedying ESPN's inhuman vulgarity." (The main objection was to Kluck's dig at big trucks.) So will this cause ESPN to reconsider? Not likely, given the success of the annual swimsuit issue of ESPN's main competitor, Sports Illustrated. The SI edition of models clad in bikinis (or less) has come out each February for 36 years and now generates up to 9 percent of the weekly's yearly revenue, reaching some 66 million adults. The 55-year-old Sports Illustratedstill outsells ESPN's 11-year-old magazine, 3.2 million to 2.1 million, though ESPN the Magazine is reportedly gaining. ESPN's "Body Issue" could be seen as a savvy upgrade on SI's swimsuit issue.
A spokesperson for ESPN the Magazine insists that the "Body Issue" is not intended as a beef-and-cheesecake alternative to SI's swimsuit issue, and is rather "a celebration of the athletic form."
"The assumption that there will be flat-out nudity is a bit of a presumption," said Crystal Howard. "Certain body parts will certainly be obscured. It certainly will be tastefully done. This is a sports magazine and it is being presented as such." In fact, the editors are apparently going to be using various pieces of equipment related to each athlete's sport to do the necessary obscuring. Moreover, the "Body Issue" isn't completely novel. In a January 2004 issue for the Winter X Games, ESPN the Magazine featured athletes in their birthday suits, or nearly so: Canadian freestyler Aleisha Cline was shown skiing in nothing but hat and glovers, and of course, boots and skis.
And before last summer's Olympic Games in Beijing, PowerAde, the official sports drink of the games, produced an eye-catching series of photos of members of Britain's contingent starkers and in action. (And hey, if the English can do nudity...)
Christian protesters may also want to recall that conservative Christian poster girl Sarah Palin showed her runner's chops (and gams) for an impressive spread in Runner's World. And sexy beauty queens like Carrie Prejean are the toast of the church circuit, as are other sought-after models who often pose in provocative positions, as Prejean herself once did. The whole world is waiting for Tebow to show his goodies…perhaps on one knee praying, conveniently hiding his cojones by his knee. Besides, as Editor Gary Belsky noted, ESPN is owned by Disney, so they're not about to have full-frontal nudity.
But what if they did? Would it make any difference? Everyone knows partially clothed bodies tend to be more alluring than the full monty and that is because of our prudishness.
Moreover, the Bible belt isn't exactly averse to the pleasures of the flesh. Red states with the highest percentage of bluenose Christians also tend to be the biggest consumers of online porn. And when Alabama's liquor control agency this summer banned a wine because its label depicted a nude nymph (from a vintage 1895 advertising poster) it sent sales of the California vintage soaring. So it's unlikely ESPN's newsstands sales will be hurt, even if Christian protests do expand beyond a few disgruntled writers and commenters. 
After Saint Paul, it took Christianity a long time to get comfortable again with the classical ideal of the human form as an object of beauty, or even something of divine inspiration -- as long as the divinity in question was the one, true God. In fact, what upset early Christian preachers most about Greek sporting events was not so much that the athletes were naked -- even the Romans and Egyptians and other sophisticates of the Mediterranean world were a little uncomfortable with that. Rather, their objection was that that the Games were also religious festivals and ceremonies dedicated to one or more of the pagan deities.
The editors at ESPN the Magazine say the aim of the "Body Issue" is to "explore the past, present and future of the athletic form," both male and female. Indeed, Belsky said one male "very big star" allowed photographers into the operating room to shoot surgery to correct some sports-related injury.
Compared to the "Girls Gone Wild" vibe of SI's swimsuit issue, we could look at that as a good thing. If we look at it at all.
The editors at ESPN the Magazine say the aim of the "Body Issue" is to "explore the past, present and future of the athletic form," both male and female. Indeed, Belsky said one male "very big star" allowed photographers into the operating room to shoot surgery to correct some sports-related injury.
Compared to the "Girls Gone Wild" vibe of SI's swimsuit issue, we could look at that as a good thing. If we look at it at all. I remember the days when you could not even take your film developed at the corner drugstore because some prudish asshole working there would turn you in to the authorities if he saw just a butt or a tit, never mind a photo of a penis. You would go to jail if you sent pictures through the mail and the Postmaster General was the acting morality Czar.
There is one good thing that has come out of all these insane Teabag demonstrations and the wackos that have been sabotaging the Town Hall Meetings; It is simply this: because they are so extreme, so insane and so unreasonable, because they tend to be the same people who go out and demonstrate against a film or an art exposition, even a magazine like Playboy has not escaped their condemnation. But as they have done all these crazy things, the majority of Americans see them for what they are: fucking hypocrites and uninformed, ignorant and provincial.
That makes for fertile grounds to offer tolerance, because the more extreme they become, their credibility is diminished. This war on sex, women, gays is just an attempt by the religious right to salvage whatever little validation they had to exist in our society. We knew all along that the Republican Party in view of their gargantuan failures during the Bush administration, their failed economic policies, their askew view of how the economy works…with this TRICKLE DOWN BS…we knew, we just knew the fucking Republicans were going to fight the next electoral battle on social issues and moral superiority (which is neither)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar