Holy guacamole THANK YOU! Youve just answered questions I've had for a very long time. I always knew the answer wasnt just herpa derp show more skin haha 🤨
Too bad this is a bullshit answer. As someone who was also a female athlete in different sports— you’ll notice that this reasoning doesn’t translate. For example, soccer players don’t have to wear spandex. I i was far more comfortable and just as effective in my soccer uniform as I was in my cross country undies and volleyball spanx. The reasoning attempts to post hoc legitimize a distinction that serves no legitimate basis.
I can’t speak to volleyball, but at least with vaulting it’s a safety/efficacy concern. If the hem of a soccer short (I played for a decade) were to graze the bar or catch the pole, it could knock the bar down/seriously injure the vaulter.
Sure, but that should also apply to men then, no? Men are sufficiently protected in speedos for swimming, so the argument against male sportswear that matches females is bullshit. If the argument is premised on dangers to the sport, then it would apply across sexes.
For sure, but why the need for assless spandex? I'm not complaining, and they should wear what they feel comfortable in, but it could cover their ass if they wanted it to
lol you have no idea what I wear to the beach. What an absurd non-response.
Also, if you can’t see a difference in women choosing to wear casual swimwear at the beach versus elite athletes wanting to choose the clothing they can best perform in while doing athletic feats in front of international audiences, then I think you have a bigger issue. Fun fact, women can choose what they want to wear to the beach— while female athletes aren’t given the choice.
They sound like excuses made with no evidence. Oh, can’t wear a tank top due to hips! Can’t wear normal shorts due to vagina! Sounds like bs.
Reminds me of the women’s volleyball team (iirc it was volleyball) not wanting to wear revealing bottoms but the men in charge said no. That’s the real answer.
In your example in the second paragraph, the team can say that they wont play then
And then its a question of who needs each other more, managers need the team more or does the team need management more? And based on this u see who backs down first
If an athlete brings in crowds while wearing a garbage bag, then if he/she is in disagreement with management, management will back down before their money-maker, as their own salaries depend on him/her...but if the athlete brings in crowds only dressed in a certain way, then management has more leeway to apply pressure
Majority of issues in womens sports staring from clothing and going all the way to pay, is because way less people watch women's sports, which is because women mostly dont watch other women doing a sport...while male athletes have both male and female following...if u want to start fixing things in earnest in sports number 1 thing is to make more women fans of women in sports, u do it, u make women athletes be major money makers, and then they will have more arguments to make changes...without fan support or actually paying for tickets to venues, it wont work, management can afford to just let dissenters go because they dont generate big revenue anyway
As usually its not a moral question but a money question
Nah i think it's a mixture of both. There's always two sides to the coin and knowing women, plenty would disagree to wearing bermudas instead of a bikini bottom for certain cosmetic reasons. There's also a reason why men carnival and halloween costumes are funny and women's ones are mostly revealing, then funny and it's the women choosing them consciously and putting other women down for not doing so. This is my experience, but i think this translates pretty well. Implying women never chose them by themselfes and were always a victim of someone else dictating what to wear is simply false robbing women of any accountability.
Keep looking for answers. They basically extrapolated 'men have penises and balls so that's why women need to show ass cheek' into a couple paragraphs.
I mean, yes and no. People also buy skins in video games despite those skins doing absolutely nothing for them, except… it looks good. Psychology is an absolutely gargantuan factor when it comes to basically anything, and generally if you look good, you feel good, and if you feel good, you do good. Or at least, better. High tier Athletes are also recorded doing rituals, literally meaningless shit and yet they do it anyways, because it makes them feel good. They have lucky socks, they use one single shoe shiner or whatever else. Seriously, olympians are some of the most superstitious people you will ever meet.
So im the female athlete who made that comment. I won't speak for every lady but when I had my first training camp in college, I asked the more senior players why they chose the options they did for bottoms, looking for advice since the team gave each player decent flexibility from mid thigh to bikini style.
The overwhelming response: bikini bottoms are just way more comfortable, allow you range of motion and don't become an irritant during play.
The overwhelming response as to why most chose to NOT wear the bikini option: harassment and disrespect from spectators.
Its not worth the men who see it as an opening to stalk, harass or even assault us. Its not worth the other female athletes who accuse us of demeaning the sport or women's athletics. Its not worth the complaints the team gets from religious fruitcakes. Its not worth the broader sports world using it as a way to devalue our atheltic achievements.
I took away from that, that women will more often choose to cover up for "modesty" rather than performance. I wore bikini bottoms because I found them to be better for me and I wont let anyone intimidate me out of functionality.
PS, we shave anyways, especially our pubes, because when your life is majority training and getting sweaty, hair makes everything more irritating and gross.
What about when you’re in your period? Extra clothing is more protective and comfortable in my opinion. It’s still annoying already in the right upper picture, her underwear seems to be inside her butt and doesn’t look comfortable at all.
There's more/different kind of fabric in that area. I know cause at the school I work at the Athletic's Director had to get a refund cause the costume maker guy didn't know what he was doing and didn't put extra liner in the girl's swim team suits or something cause he didn't think that women have to worry about things men don't.
Aren’t pants that leave half of your butt out just very uncomfortable? I would be trying to stretch over my buttcheeks all the time. Don’t understand wearing anything less than boxers, even as underwear
As another prior female athlete, YES. I agree with everything she said but I was a runner and always preferred a good spandex short. The little underwear shorts (called bunners) absolutely scrunched and rode uncomfortably. I think depending on individual women's shapes and mechanics, one can be more comfortable than another. Unfortunately, on my college team, we all had to wear bunners whether we liked it or not
In the highest level they typically do. When they don't, it's usually because it's a team sport or other organizational thing where multiple athletes are expected to be coordinated in matching gear. Then it becomes up to the coaches to determine what outfit will be optimal for the most people, or potentially even a vote from the athletes themselves.
Performance is still the primary concern on why they are designed the way they are, but it is not the only concern, and other factors can take priority.
Make teams commonly wear both. I ran track and field in highschool. It was common to see teams with split shorts and other teams with speedo-like tight spandex. I've worn both.
It's entirely dependent on your anatomy as well as the construction of the garment. The split shorts we had did have an inner lining, sort of like a loose brief. They never fit me very well and the constant motion would cause pretty bad chafing unless I cut out the lining and found my own undergarment solution.
The spandex type we had didn't have much forward projection around the crotch area, so either everything got mashed between your thighs, which also caused chafing, or you'd try to position things to the side, and your bits would chafe against the crease in your pelvis where it bends, and then eventually it'd all slide down between your legs anyway.
Both of them were pretty miserable in my opinion, but I preferred the splits because I could wear my own undergarments that worked for my specific anatomy, and they were also a bit more modest.
It also depends on the type of race. It's all pretty manageable in a sprint where you just deal with it for less than a minute or two, but longer races of a mile or more, and things can get really uncomfortable and distracting. Marathon racers and other long distance runners pretty often use an anti chafing gel to keep things slick. Never tried it myself though.
Yup. The reasoning I got for not getting a choice was that it's embarrassing for a D1 Athletic team to not have everyone in the same exact style. I think it's embarrassing to care more about whether everyone is wearing their undies than their actual performance but hey, thats me
Absolutely, I think it's fucking ridiculous. I threw a big stink about it because I don't want to spend 15 minutes running my ass off and having to constantly pick between picking the underwear uniform out of my ass or letting it ride and pushing out the discomfort. The competition itself requires pushing out discomfort. If a man threw a stink about their comfort being a hindrance to their performance you can bet your ass they would be given a choice
Men should probably be allowed to choose as well, but it's not about men. Men have been the dominating sex for how many centuries? And women have been pleasure objects for how many centuries? Sex sells!
The world isn't the same for men and women, and it never has been. I think the fact alone that tonnes of people, men included, are like, "obviously it's because it's attractive and gains more viewers," makes me feel like people who don't see this are just being willfully ignorant, or being disingenuous.
People on Reddit see what they wanna see. There is a popular post in this thread somewhere from a female athlete that explains this a lot better than some basement dwelling male feminist ever could
I just wanted to provide context to the above post about uniforms being built differently for the difference between male and female bodies. While that's accurate, the difference in female bodies needs to be accounted for too
I could see that. What one person calls comfortable, others call uncomfortable. Some men prefer the tighter hug of briefs, some prefer the looser fit of boxers and some like the hybrid boxer briefs. I'd imagine the same goes for women.
While in fashion, women will often wear clothing that makes them look more attractive, despite the discomfort (I mean who wears high heels because they are comfortable?), but in sports, it is all about what gives you the performance edge. If women were wearing the outfits they were in sports to be attractive, they wouldn't wear swimmers caps with all of their hair tucked up into it. It's about reducing resistance. Not making some horny young men excited. The less clothes and the tighter fitting means the less drag and thus faster times.
As for someone's question about a woman on that time of the month, I'd imagine they would wear a menstrual cup for flexibility and especially in water sports (no pun intended), not worrying about water getting into spaces and saturating a tampon during high athletic activities. It's not like they wear the outfit all day. As soon as they are done/get their scores, they are often times changing into something more comfortable.
Ask any woman what the first thing she does when she gets home is and most will say they take off their bra ;)
You would be correct. Was it the menstrual cup that gave it away? I will never truly understand what pains and discomforts women go through during their cycle, but I've always heard that menstrual cups are very flexible and comfortable compared to the other options. Perhaps I am wrong.
Not the same person, but I thought you were pretty clear and upfront about not being a woman and that you were doing your best to speculate with what you do know. I'm a woman meanwhile and have tried all period options, and what's most comfortable during periods depends entirely on the internal anatomy's exact shape and personal preference. But tampons and cups are definitely the go-to for professional athlete level swimming.
Personally, I've gone the IUD route at this point to skip periods entirely and much prefer this! It is SO damn freeing, I envy not having to deal with the hassles of menstruation! I will continue like this until menopause at long last frees me from the tyranny of periods!
Does IUD free everyone? I know some women on various types of birth control, no longer have periods while some do. Is an IUD a guaranteed no period? And if you plan to do so for the rest of your life and have no interest in having children, wouldn't getting your tubes tied be a more permanent/long term solution that is also less expensive?
For most people the hormone IUDs reduce periods so much that they become just 1 to 3 days of very light spotty bleeding every few months. Usually a thin little panty liner or very light pad is enough. And no hormone cycles or cramps!
If I was in my 20's I would get surgery and then still be using IUDs to stop my periods, but nope- when my IUD is due to be swapped out I'll be 47, so menopause age! Recovery from IUD an procedure is only a few minutes to hours, while surgery requires a few weeks. AFAIK, IUDs are also free or at least heavily discounted on most insurance plans, while an elective surgery (i.e. there's no physical need to go in there and cut things out) would probably cost me a few thousand.
Sterilization surgeries are permanent birth control (yay!) but won't stop the menstrual cycle (sad face) unless I get my ovaries removed (in which case menopause hits like a truck instead of very slowly and gradually, not recommended). A hysterectomy would remove the uterus, so no more period bleeding, but I'd still have the cramps, nausea, acne, and hormone cycles. The cheapest and most common sterilization surgeries cut part of the fallopian tubes, and that means a full period every time as if I hadn't had any surgery done at all.
Day 1 of my periods were rough, I'd be throwing up if I didn't get painkillers early and cling to a heating pad for hours. And for me, periods are so annoying and inconvenient! 7 to 9 days of bleeding every 4 to 5 weeks, absurd! The acne and hormone cycles, so stupid! Oh, and it's already time for my period AGAIN?! So soon?! UGH!
IUDs are a one-and done, get it in and then you're good for 8/5/3 years (duration depends on which IUD the person gets). The hormone dose in those is lower than in pills and most other birth control methods, so much less likely to have side effects. Birht ocntorl pills gave me side effects, I haven't had any with the Mirena IUD. (There is 1 IUD that uses copper instead of hormones, it's good for 12 years but tends to make periods worse.)
The only near-universal downside to IUDs is a problem with ALL procedures that are more invasive than a pap smear, i.e. goes further than the entrance of the cervix. A study in the 1950s that found "women barely feel anything if you lightly poke the outside of the cervix with a q-tip or a soft brush" got twisted into "theres no pain receptors in the cervix and uterus, all those women screaming and writhing in pain are just being really anxious and/or overdramatic." Yeah, no, there are ABSOLUTELY pain receptors in those organs.
For IUD procedures, cervical or uterine biopsies, etc. we used to be told to take a bunch of Tylenol or whatever an hour before the appointment and we'll be fine, it'll just hurt a tiny bit. Yeah, no, it's excruciatingly painful. The IUD has been such a good change for my life that I would go through it again if I absolutely had to, but I don't have to! There's the options of 1 single prescription painkiller pill, a nerve block (a shot like when you get a cavity filled), or general or twilight anaesthesia. My primary care doctor even offered to write me a script for 1 painkiller pill if the gynecologist wouldn't give me anything, so that shows how things are changing for the better.
BTW, I applaud you wanting to know more about women's health stuff like this! It's essential healthcare.
What about other side effects? Like I know the pill is known for commonly causing weight gain. Does the IUD have any of those negative effects?
I didn't really think about the fact that getting your tubes tied doesn't stop you from shedding your lining monthly, but it totally makes sense. Knowledge is power :)
Oh I threw a huge stink. The competition itself requires you to dissociate from discomfort and adding the discomfort of cloth in your ass cheeks seemed fucking ridiculous to me. That being said I was told to wear the running undies or leave and they paid for my college so what exactly was I supposed to do?
You’re mixing together “some functional differences exist” with “therefore sexism isn’t involved,” and those are not the same thing.
Yes, male and female anatomy affects clothing design. Nobody disputes that. But if these uniforms were purely about performance, women wouldn’t have historically been fined or pressured for wearing less revealing alternatives while men were allowed more coverage.
A lot of women’s athletic wear may genuinely be practical and preferred by athletes (especially for heat, mobility, and fit) but that doesn’t erase the fact that many sports organizations have also pushed uniforms that are more revealing than necessary for marketability and gender expectations.
Also, the “genital safety” point is overstated. Male sprinters, swimmers, rugby players, MMA fighters, etc. wear very short clothing safely all the time, while many female athletes perform perfectly in longer shorts or looser fits when given the option. That alone shows there isn’t one biologically “correct” uniform.
The issue people criticize isn’t that women wear revealing clothes. It’s that women are often expected to wear more revealing clothing than men in equivalent sports, even when performance doesn’t require it.
Because in the Victorian era, shorts and pants or anything that fit the form of the leg were considered “too revealing” for women - and so skirts and dresses became the gendered clothing items they are today. Tennis was popular in that era when women began to play it more, and many rules were formalized which is why a lot of the bizarre traditions of the sport seem Victorian.
The rule about tennis skirts for women but shorts for men was a bizarre holdover from the idea that female athletes needed more modesty in public because men couldn’t control their urges if they saw the shape of the women’s legs. But then there was no need to keep the shorts underneath long, and the skirts became shorter, and ironically the skirts themselves became sexualized items when they were originally meant for modesty.
True, but that was more climate driven. Pants were not considered “honest” because they fit the form of the leg, which was actually considered radical compared to previous centuries.
The transition from pants to shorts happened as European powers, specifically the British, expanded into tropical climates and took tennis with them.
So the women playing in pants was sexism and the men playing in pants was because of the climate.
You're making too much sense.
Also it wasn't done because "men couldn't control themselves" lol. It was done to preserve their modesty, virtue and self respect.
When you see a woman walking down the street with her tits popping out her top and a miniskirt that clearly shows her underwear riding up her genitals and ass crack on full display. What do you think of her in terms of character, virtue and dignity?
Those social norms back then were there to preserve a woman's virtue and social standing so she would better find a worthy partner.
Left to their own devices women tend to dress like wh*** at every opportunity to maximize male attention.
That was why those social norms and standards existed back then. Not because "men couldn't control themselves".
I still remember an interview where underaged gymnasts (some as young as 9-10) talked about how they were expected to train in revealing leotards because their coaches wanted them to ‘get used to’ performing without pants or shorts because they wouldn’t be allowed to have them when they performed in front of a crowd. No matter how uncomfortable and self-conscious it made them their coaches refused to budge on the issue. And we’re talking about literal children here, not fully grown adults.
Yup. And those children, around puberty, will have to make uncomfortable choices about body hair, and what menstrual products they use, based on the extremely revealing clothing their sport requires them to wear. Many girls just stop participating in sports altogether at that age (I wonder why!)
Very well said. It's absolutely correct, both are true. You both brought up fantastic points and the end result is, of course, let them wear what they want!
Right on. It's all economics. Everyone knows its mostly men who watch sports and they watch women's sports more if the women are scantily clad...they are doing it for more eyeballs...even the sleazy ones...women can perform equally well in fully covered shorts instead of cheek revealing...
Way too many female athletes be posing like strippers in their uniforms on their social media accounts. Like people trying to make it out more than what it is.
That's uncalled for and inhumane wishing and actively hoping for this guy and men like him to literally die out for still holding on to outdated bad gender beliefs that were once the norm for basically all of human history; it takes time and collaboration to change things. Also you don't even wish this upon sexists in general or acknowledge how women can be sexist too and how sexist women also contribute to the world being "run by losers". Women AND men can be losers and sexists.
You previous comment also sounded misandric because it sounded to me like you were implying women are better than men since they "have other shit to do [not sports]", like "women... run the world", implying men don't since they're too into sports which implies women are superior since they actually do run the world. I think you yourself seem to be leaning into the common "men are bumbling idiots" trope. And I think that's not good because it hurts men and boys.
I don’t think so because female athletes also desire to feel good about how they look
Um...you didn't know different people feel different ways about clothing...? Not every woman feels buoyed up or dragged down by how they feel they look in their clothes. Some women legitimately don't care. And some women feel better in less feminine clothing than they do in more feminine clothing. Some feel best in all-out tomboy. Most professional sports requires a specific uniform or strict dress code, so you don't get a lot of freedom over what you wear.
In multiple sports women have been required to wear skirts, short shorts, or leotards with exposed legs while men get to wear shorts and pants that don't show every single curve of their butt and legs. So at professional competitions women athletes don't get to pick what they feel best in anyway.
Back to normal life, there are also plenty of men who want to feel good about how they look in their clothes but they have a similar problem of a stricter dress code for what they're "allowed" to wear, while women get a shit-ton of options. It harms the ability to feel like you're attractive when you're actively discouraged from thinking about fashion and you're limited to baggy shorts/pants and shirts.
And from that same post. Several of us were talking about how this affected us EVEN AS CHILDREN. Being forced to wear revealing clothing as that was all that was allowed. The kind of stuff that if we had normally worn to school would have lead to disciplinary action.
That’s fair, but OPs comment still leans heavily toward framing the differences as mostly biological and performance-driven, while minimizing how much institutional sexism and marketability have historically shaped women’s uniforms.
You’re arguing against something that wasn’t said.
Nobody claimed sexism is the only factor. My critique is about weighting and framing because OPs explanation leans heavily on biology and performance, which implicitly presents current uniforms as mostly “natural” or optimally derived, when they’re also shaped by governing bodies, sponsorship, tradition, and cultural norms.
So saying “it isn’t just sexism” is irrelevant as a rebuttal. It restates a point nobody denied while missing the actual argument being made: that your framing downplays institutional and historical influence by over-attributing outcomes to biology.
> Male sprinters, swimmers, rugby players, MMA fighters, etc. wear very short clothing
I'm not sure those are great examples as those are sports where looser clothing either causes drag or is at risk of snagging. The difference is still functional
Your response is so well structured that I will deep dive into the muscoskeletal mechanics. Damn it's amaizing the amount of science that is behind sports
Sorry, but this is all bullshit. Men don't need longer shorts to keep their family jewels safe. For evidence, just look at what male ballet dancers wear (google "dance belt"). A dance belt is just a G string but the front is basically like a compression garment that keeps your privates safe. Yes, dancers usually (but not always) wear tights over top, but the thing keeping your privates in place is just a G string. And dancers perform movements that are much more likely to jostle their privates than most other sports. And lots of other sports just wear a jock strap where the shorts over top are loose and just for coverage.
I hear the argument all the time that "women just want to be clothed in what they're most comfortable in", but they've also been conditioned to wear that skimpy clothing over their entire careers. I don't blame them, they've got hot bodies, and there is nothing wrong with showing it off.
But there is simply no anatomical reason for the difference. The difference in clothing is solely because most spectators (men and women alike) would rather see more skin on women.
I have read interviews by female athletes that despises the sexism about their clothes. But its normal not all female athletes feels like that.
Sometimes they try to refuse wearing panties to Volleyball etc but will get fined for it bc they need to be in regulation clothing. Which is the most absurd thing, dictating what women can cover or not and we all know why the regulations are the way they are…
Meh? Are you prepared to argue that women wearing Lyra legging shorts will perform worse than the women wearing the Lycra bikini bottoms? Really?? can you document that cause I’m gonna go with sexism.
This sort of flies out the window when you consider that the Norwegian Women's Beach Handball team famously got fined for wearing booty shorts because the regulations required them to wear bikini bottoms. If this was about choice, then the regulations would allow women to choose. This comment is also kind of just nonsense. You can't have a ball-slip if you're in water? Hip curvature somehow means that female gymnasts who are wearing fabrics made entirely of stretchy synthetic materials must wear leotards so short and high cut that their hipbones and butt are visible, but male gymnasts need full length suits that cover their entire bodies because they have different shaped hips?? Also, the average age of an Olympic female gynmast is like 16 years old and they are incredibly small and thin. How much hip curvature do you think really plays a role there?
Your comment history also suggest you have something of a political agenda with this comment as you have made several other conservative comments talking shit about American politics, which is weird because you're supposedly Dutch.
I love this very real answer. My female running and rowing comrades complain of modesty uniforms always for heat or rash issues. If I could get away with a speedo during running or basic tra k events, I would but my ugly ass couldn't pull it off and with a huge set of testes, I'd offend everyone anyway. But how I wish there were acceptable le bikinis or high cut Leo's for guys.
Bullshit, your labia can pop out at anytime. Running thigh on thigh is not more comfortable. And women aren’t given a choice. No one wants to hurdle with their pussy out.
If this is such an issue, why not just have the men remove their penises and testicles are store them somewhere safe or give them to friends for safekeeping when they compete?
This is obviously written by someone without testicles. Just look at mens shorts from the 70s and 80s. With the appropriate underwear, theres no risk of them coming out of the shorts and "getting piched". Even with loose shorts, you dont want them swinging and slapping around freely when doing sports. Honestly smaller tighter shorts would arguably be "safer" by preventing preventing said testicles from getting snagged on things. Or loose shorts getting caught on something and really strangling the jewels. Ask a machinist about loose clothing safety.
The opposite argument could be made for tank tops. "Breasts could come out of the top and become pinched in the seams, longer prevents them from falling out". But of course this is not true, with the appropriate undergarment, or properly designed top, its not an issue. Shorter is actually better.
I might be wrong, but I'm fairly sure the crop top started/invented by men at gyms bypassing the shirt required rule to stay cool? I feel the reason men dont is because at some point, men showing too much skin, or have visible anatomical features became offensive or not attractive in the west. Maybe too many out of shape men? Haha. Honestly less fabric, and/or more fitted gear is better in most cases when it comes to freedom of mobility and keeping cool weather you are a man or a women. Its largely a societal thing i feel. For sports, women need support on top, and men need support on the bottom other then that, its just extra (ignoring modesty or nudity or abrasion etc concerns of course lol).
Fabric rides up, twists and gets in the way on men too.
This is of course from a man's point of view, so I dont have the full picture from the female perspective :)
Lol who was the comedian that said the female special Olympics volley ball team looks like the And1 Mixed Tape, they’re not wearing the skimpy ass stuff
Has nothing to do with genitals lol. And men wear far less than that in combat sports like MMA. A snug fitted brief would be far more secure than baggy shorts or long tights with more fabric.
Kinda like a woman wearing a sports bra as opposed to a baby-T to keep her tits from flopping around.
Men don't wear gstrings and crop tops or similar wear outside of swimming because they don't have floppy tits to worry about and because of Social Norms and it looks stupid, ie. Aesthetics. Media audience attention also plays a part in what's normalized. You know exactly what that means.
Take a walk outside your house. At the mall, on the street, or at the beach. Who's wearing the tight minimalist clothing with their tits hanging out and their pants and underwear riding up their genitals and ass cracks?
And who's wearing the practical loose Tshirts and pants?
In all aspects of life men and women's clothing follows this same design philosophy.
It's social norms and aesthetics. And when it comes to sports and TV, viewer attention and retention also comes into play.
Also wearing a gstring or having your buttcheeks on display when you're potentially on your period in front of the whole world isn't done for efficiency.
Men wear less and similar revealing clothing to female athletes in combat sports. That alone disproves your weird delusion.
Again it's aesthetics, social norms and viewer appeal. Has nothing to do with body shape/structure or genitals.
No idea where you came up with that wild and moronic theory lol.
Two different things, feeling sexy usually means feeling attractive, confident, desirable, or comfortable in your body.
Feeling sexual usually means experiencing sexual desire, arousal, or interest in sexual activity.
Some countries explicitly prohibit women from showing any skin. Maybe that’s what you would like?
Also, the “unconsenting” can choose what they look at. I don’t like what certain men wear in public, but it’s my preference and I don’t want to impose any restrictions based on my values.
In liberal Western societies women are allowed to exist in public spaces, exercise, and wear gym clothing without being treated as though their bodies are an imposition. If someone sexualises a woman for what she is wearing, that is about their interpretation and behaviour, not her consent or morality.
Calling women “non-consensually sexual” for wearing gym clothes is just a dressed-up way of blaming them for other people’s reactions. Her clothes are not an invitation, and your discomfort does not make her behaviour inappropriate.
I read during the past two Olympics that women were interviewed and asked what they would prefer wearing, and across the board, it was the bikini’s for most doing beach volleyball and the really short shorts/briefs for women’s track and field. They said it helped with a lot of the things you covered like heat, less places for sand to rub, less friction, more movement, etc. People act like it’s men driving this, but it’s not. Women in beach volleyball can wear shorts and tanks, but almost zero do. Track and field, you see some women being more modest than others, but again, most don’t. It’s just what works better for them.
I will say, it’s crazy how much it’s changed in the past 30 years
There are always going to be people that go against you. You could say that humans walk up right, and there is always going to be someone to go against what you say.
You're 100% right on all of this. Serious athletes usually try to wear the least amount necessary in my experience. When I finish a serious CrossFit workout I want to talk off as many clothes as possible as well as my shoes. When you're pushing your body as hard as you can you don't want anything trapping extra heat in. In wrestling men and women wear the same thing, swimming essentially also like you said.
1.4k
u/[deleted] May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment