Tough call. She looks - and is - absolutely gorgeous, but why does she have to be naked?

(obvious answer: sex sells. but does this issue actually sell more than ones with clothed men on the cover? and are men never naked on the cover because the magazine's demographic IS men who don't want to see naked men?)

I think it does diminish her strength. Just because you can see that she has muscles doesn't detract from the fact that she is posed naked in a sexay position (they would never pose a man like this - it's far too diminishing of power of dominance). She does look good - she's a beautiful woman. But when her sexay submissive naked body is the only thing we are asked to consider about her, that's sexist. It's not a tough call to me.

On the one hand - yes, it's objectifying. It's a naked woman, not a naked man on the cover of a magazine which is presumably aimed at guys. On the other hand - there are naked men inside the magazine, and this cover is celebrating her physical strength. She's not a naked lady draped on top of a clothed guy (ala Adam Lambert's Details photo shoot), she is a strong, powerful woman enjoying herself. It doesn't come across as submissive, and she's famous for being a successful athlete, not just because she's beautiful. Also, I think it's kind of awesome to see a strong black woman on the cover! Yes, she's naked, but isn't it kind of nifty to see her portrayed as beautiful and powerful - not having to cover that up by being oh-so feminine?

The Body Issue actually has six covers, three men and three women, all of whom are pictured nude. (You can see four more covers at HuffPo.) The photos in the magazine are also about equally male and female.

I also wrote about The Body Issue here and here. In general, I found it pretty powerful. Yes, there are a few images in the magazine in which women are set in very come-hither-sexy poses, but over all, we see bodies that look powerful and athletic--whether male or female.

That doesn't mean the response to the Issue hasn't been sexist, objectifying or degrading. (I did a google image search for "ESPN Magazine The Body Issue covers" and didn't see any of the male athletes until the bottom of the second page--methinks some of those viewing the images had a different aim in mind than appreciation.) But overall, I think the purpose of this issue--to show strong, powerful, beautiful, athletic bodies--was realized.

The pose is beautiful. Her body is beautiful. And I love her gorgeous dark black skin.

That being said, I don't see anything sexual or objectifying about her pose. She is a world famous athlete and she is strong. She is PROUD and you can see it in her face.

She's also a symbol of dark black beauty, which is rarely celebrated by the media, let alone on the cover of a mainstream (male) sports magazine.

I think it's great.

In isolation, I did think the Serena covered seemed unnecessarily sexualized, especially the way she is all made up and styled. However, now that I have looked at the other covers, it doesn't seem that is the overall intention of the series, so perhaps that was Serena's preference? No matter, I think that as a series these covers seem to represent males and females as strong and/or sexual in varying degrees. I think that Dwight Howard's arm positioning is reminiscent of a nude female model covering her breasts. I am impressed with the Sarah Reinertsen cover because she looks happy, confident and unapologetic that her prosthetic is crossed OVER her other leg. And even though she is naked, the relaxed posture and dangling arms do not come across as overly sexualized. I think that individually a lot could be said about each cover, but I think as a whole, they are balanced and do convey the varying concepts with which a "body issue" can deal.

Looking at this in the greater context (the other covers, which feature two black men and three white women, all of whom are at least partly naked: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/espns-body-issue-of-naked_n_311168.html?slidenumber=2), I don't have a problem with it at all, and in fact, I'm guessing Serena probably had some say in how she was portrayed.

The nudity was unnecessary. Even still, I am very happy to see a model who is healthy, powerful, female, a minority, and successful in a traditionally male career; a combination never found on fashion magazines. I give this photo 9 out of 10 stars!

How is she the exact same color all over? I never even knew that was possible! Please tell me I'm not the only one whose body is like a million different colors...
But uh, other than that, I'd imagine that all of the athletes involved had some say in how they were portrayed. I don't know much about her, but I'm guessing she's a fun, relaxed chick judging by this cover.

I think it's gorgeous, and I would rather see her naked like this than dressed up in a "sexy" outfit (especially glad she's not in heels on the cover). I don't really see her as submissive here, not with that smile.

Sure I'm a feminist, but I'll take a celebration of Serena's bodytype anyway I can get it!

I wonder if it is possible for the image to be non-sexist, but the use of the image on ESPN is sexist? The more I think about it, the more I feel this way.

I mean the problem is not the subject but the context, right? The few-times they put an image of a woman on ESPN magazine, she's nude.

Could ESPN could rectify this sexist context by committing to put more non-nude images of women on their covers in the future? (They'd have to follow it up with action of course.) I'm curious about what people think about this.

I hadn't seen the other covers for the body image - I'm glad someone posted the link!

It's interesting to me the difference between seeing an image in isolation and seeing one in a specific context. It's a diverse array of athletes and they ARE gorgeous portraits.

I still can't shake my feeling that there is something different in the way the female subjects are photographed and the way male subjects are photographed. The women are all shown in full-body poses, only one guy is. Two of the women are smiling, none of the men are.

But still, on the whole I think ESPN got it (mostly) right.

ESPN magazine has a feature selling previous magazine covers, where you can look at all the covers they have put out each year:
http://gallery.pictopia.com/espnmag/gallery/27214/
Although women very rarely appear on the cover, outside of the body issue to women wear clothes. They seem to be wearing dresses more often than athletic clothing, as this
http://gallery.pictopia.com/espnmag/gallery/30718/photo/espnmag:3291718/?o=37
is as close as I can find to a woman in athletic clothing for the past few years - at least she has sports equipment in her picture. Men are pictured both in sports clothing and in street or formal clothing.

Why is she so darn oily?

After checking out the other covers, I still feel like there's a mix of racism and sexism to the way Serena is posed. Of all of the athletes, she is the only one who isn't either confronting the viewer with a strong, confident gaze, or ignoring the viewer as she goes about her business. I also think that her pose looks the most uncomfortable and unnatural of them all. She has a very strong, powerful body, and it's weird to me to see her posed that way.

No. A full and resounding NO. There is so much wrong with this.

http://www.rogerblack.com/global/img/posts/vert_story/espn_cover.jpg
so she ain't a woman ?

about the serena williams cover, it reminds me more of a greek olympus statue, which would kind of logical for a sports magazine. plus she's a black naked covergirl with quite some curves which doesn't happen very often.

In general i don't see so much the problem in objectifing women through naked covers (i don't even really see how this is objectifing).

i'm way more concerned about the social catégories magazines try to put us in. women should read gardening magazines, gossip magazines and fashion magazines full of shopping and cooking recipies; men should read sports magazines, car magazines and news magazines (way too complicated for simple housewifes).
with gay émancipation appeared even gay magazines (with fashion and shopping advices), gay tv and a special gay movie section at your videostore. gay men are now part of society... but still appart (they don't shre the same interests). lesbians however don't need specific litterature, or did i miss the lesbian sports magazine ?

it is very oppressive for both, women and men to be forced in simplistic and very narrow categories...