Oklahoma city mayor bans Lingerie Football League


42 Responses to “Oklahoma city mayor bans Lingerie Football League”

  1. Halloween Jack says:

    Oklahoma City is the kind of place that considers Tulsa (home of Oral Roberts University) to be godless and decadent.

  2. turn_self_off says:

    junk food and pay-pr-view tv, keep the plebs happy…

  3. bardfinn says:

    So, athletes in tight spandex that emphasises stereotypical secondary physical gender attributes, tossing about a football, is “desirable to have in a city venue”, “increases tourism revenue” and “employs hundreds of people” thereby “improving retail value and real estate valuations” of the neighborhood so long as it is MEN, but when it’s WOMEN the mayor comes within a hair’s breadth of publicly calling it a sexually-oriented business – ? Because fit women should only aspire to being cheerleaders, right? Debutante balls? On their knees proffering a filet mignon?

    Fuck that sexist asshole. The gall.

  4. eaglescout1984 says:

    $20 says he’s gay or his wife has his balls in a vice! No independent straight man would ever ban women from running around, getting dirty and jumping on each other in their unmentionables. Unless of course, he banned solely on the fact “Pantsing” was a penalty.

  5. Mitch says:

    If the city has a monopoly on facilities capable of hosting athletic events then they should sue on the grounds that the city is using it’s monopoly to restrict their right to free speech by effectively preventing them from performing in the area.

    Meanwhile, they should start an Oklahoma City team anyway- one that can’t play home games, for now.

    If the court doesn’t rule in their favor they should back whoever is running against the incumbent mayor at election time.

    I’m keeping my fingers crossed for McDonald’s to stand up for free enterprise by trying to get the Happy Meal ban overturned in court, too.

  6. Jardine says:

    How about banning them for false advertising? Those outfits are much less revealing than I expect when I heard “Lingerie Football League”.

  7. Michael Smith says:

    We don’t have the Lingerie Football league here in Australia but I have to say that when I was single I found it quite comforting to watch womens basketball on TV on Saturday evenings.

  8. Exotic Lingerie says:

    Sexism for sure! I’m all for Lingerie Football and any other sports that include women…why should men have all the fun.

  9. Antinous / Moderator says:

    I fear for the Jock Sock Figure Skating League.

  10. Alan says:

    First, no Sharia law. Now no Lingerie Football League. Those folks need to figure out what the hell they are doing.

  11. Anonymous says:

    S&M shuffle-board still O.K. in OKC? um, Guys?… I’ll bring snacks this time. Anyone?

  12. Anonymous says:

    For those interested… The Lost Ogle, a cross between an Okie version of the Daily Show and a frat party, have had funny coverage on this topic. They even had a scoop on the announcement which was than picked up by local media and never credited.


  13. Skep says:

    I wonder on what basis the mayor can ban this sport? Especially since the athletes don’t actually wear lingerie but rather outfits that are not much different from what many competetive runners wear and are actually less revealing that what many professional volley ball players wear.

    I can’t say as I’m a fan of Lingerie Football since it seems to be about the oogleing rather than the sportsmanship and game play, sod it seems unfair to the female athletes who play–but perhaps it is no more demeaning, perhaps less, than being a member of the Washington Generals.

  14. okiedokie says:

    “Too many reasons to list” = “Mick didn’t think of it first” + “Mick ain’t getting a cut of the proceeds”

    You guys also missed the City Councils latest idea to mandate sprinkler systems (fire suppression systems) in all newly built homes. Yes, in HOMES!!! Way to try to kill the housing industry. Wonder who on the City Council owns a Sprinkler System company?

  15. Anonymous says:

    they came first for the cigarettes in bars, and i did not speak up, for i did not smoke cigarettes. then they came for the four loko, and i did not speak up, for i did not drink four loko. then they came for the lingerie football league, and i did not speak up, for i do not wear lingerie. then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    • Chinny Racoon says:

      Smoking causes (often serious) health damage to people besides the smoker. No problem with smoking itself- it’s your life you’re pissing away- but subjecting other people to it isn’t a positive thing.

      • Rob says:

        You’re right, subjecting other people to smoking is bad.

        If you don’t like it, stay out of smokers’ homes.


  16. Anonymous says:

    Let’s hope the ACLU sic their lawyers on this policy. There’s no way it will hold up to any legal scrutiny.

  17. Guillaume Filion says:

    I had no idea there was such a thing a Lingerie Football League! Boing Boing you’ve made my day!! :D

  18. Anonymous says:

    Wasn’t there a problem with the LFL not properly compensating its players, not offering health insurance, and otherwise being a lousy employer? I could swear I heard something about 6 months ago but my cursory search only came up with recent articles about this brouhaha.

  19. Church says:

    It’s seven on seven football, with no field goals or punts. What’s not to like?

  20. ScavengerCat says:

    Kevin Bacon, please oh please come dance us out of this one!

  21. Church says:

    Could be worse. Could be Arena League.

  22. delt664 says:

    Lets not forget that Oklahoma City also knowingly houses stolen property : The Seattle SuperSonics

    • Anonymous says:

      I hadn’t heard of the LFL or the Sonics move to OKC! Did this stuff start during the big oil spill? Must… leave… cave…

  23. Chris Tucker says:

    Well, yes. It’s a stupid decision from a stupid Oakie.

    On the other hand, it DOES irritate the libertarians, so there is that upside!

  24. Ugly Canuck says:


  25. MarkM says:

    I don’t think its fair of reason.tv to rank Roy LaHood contemplating banning cellphones in cars (a safety issue) with the prudishness of banning the lingerie football league.

    and frankly the phrase “nanny state” has been tainted by the right and the tea partiers. if you use that phrase, you’re already Doing It Wrong.

  26. narrowstreetsLA says:

    Haaay now, what’s so “crazy nanny state” about banning cell phones in cars? Those things are proven to be dangerous, especially when texting!

    • retchdog says:

      While true, apparently the bans have not proven effective:


      (although, yes, this is only support for the libertarians’ predetermined position)

      • grimc says:

        Speaking only in the context of LA, any study would be faulty because LAPD doesn’t enforce the law–partly because LAPD cops break the law themselves.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        The bans probably aren’t effective because everybody on the road still has a cell phone glued to the side of their head. I haven’t noticed any compliance in SoCal.

    • foobar says:

      Well, it doesn’t actually stop people from texting while driving. It just gets people to hold the phone where it can’t be seen by passing cops and forces the rest of us to screw around with bluetooth rather than pay attention to the road when we want to take a call.

  27. MonkeyRobo says:

    “When they came for the lingerie models, I did not speak out, because I was not a lingerie model…”

  28. Anonymous says:

    This is sexism at it’s worst! There would be absolutely no problem if it were a men’s lingerie football league!

  29. Anonymous says:

    As someone who lives in OKC and has followed this issue, I’d like to point out that he didn’t actually “ban” anything. He said he didn’t want it and there were “problems.”

    He backtracked on those comments, a few days later, and clarified that he wouldn’t “ban” it, and that he just didn’t like it. Check out the follow-up coverage, please.

    He expressed a political view, not an executive order. He would, undoubtedly, be sued if he tried to “ban” it.

    I’m basically a free-speech absolutist, so I think his remarks were silly. But I don’t think he was intending to outlaw anything.

  30. Lucifer says:

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination on the basis of sex among other. So if they’re going to ban women from playing professional football, they better ban the NFL too.

  31. Anonymous says:

    OKC is a strange, strange place. This is a bit off topic, but the dress code for my son’s elementary school in OKPS stated that there was to be “No Satanic (notice that capital S) cult dress.”. He was in first grade. What is Satanic cult dress? How in Maude’s name did that end up on the official dress code?

Leave a Reply