Oklahoma city mayor bans Lingerie Football League

Ted Balaker of Reason.tv says: "This is what happens to freedom of assembly when mayors and council members get to say who assembles -- arbitrary restrictions based on the tastes of those who hold office. And in this case the mayor hasn't even felt it necessary to explain why he sacked the Lingerie Football League. He simply says that "there are too many problems to list," and leaves it at that."

To watch previous Nanny of the Month episodes, go here.



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

  2. 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.

  3. “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?

    1. Yeah, it would be terrible if the homes we all sleep in had to be as safe from fire as commercial buildings–obviously an evil conspiracy…. :-p

  4. 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.

    1. 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.

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

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


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

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

    1. 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…

  7. 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!

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

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

    1. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

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

  18. 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.

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

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

  21. $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.

Comments are closed.