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."