The International Olympic Committee Addresses Recent Sexism Claims Regarding Female Olympic Attire:
“We aren’t sexist; female athletes simply must be *more naked* than male athletes.”
Here at the International Olympic Committee, we take issue with the backlash we’ve been receiving regarding the uniforms some female teams have been choosing to compete in at this year’s Olympics in Tokyo. Many people have been calling us sexist; however, we’re here to set the record straight: we are not sexist. Women’s bodies simply must be showcased more than men’s bodies during the Olympic games. This disparity is for athletic reasons only, and has always been a vital regulation of the Olympic Committee. In fact, this inconsistency has been a necessity in all sports since female athletes were first allowed to, you know, exist. We will explain.
First, we’d like to address the Norwegian women’s handball team. Normally, female handball players wear the regulation teeny-bikini bottoms that expose much of their butt cheeks, upper thighs, bikini line, and hips. However, this year, the Norwegian women’s team opted for shorts — in fact — the exact same shorts that the men wear. Fair, right?
Wrong. This is indeed an issue, but the issue is not sexist. The European Handball Federation fined these women 1,500 Euro because the written rules stipulate that “women must wear bikini bottoms while men wear shorts.” Why, you ask? Safety and aerodynamics. For example, let’s say a female handball player is wearing stretchy spandex shorts: the restrictive fabric suffocating her upper thighs and concealing the razor-burnt stubble around her vagina. This woman may not be able to jump high enough to get the ball, which may cause her to hyperextend a muscle, causing a contortion or other injury. This would never occur with a male athlete because: testicles.
For another example, let’s say a female handball player is wearing shorts which modestly cover her ass cheeks as she falls into the sand while in play: said sand will not be able to permeate directly into her ass crack as easily as it normally would with teeny-bikini bottoms. Due to the comfortable lack of hot sand abrasions in her anus, labia majora, and labia minora, this female athlete may get right up and continue the game, her team gaining an unfair advantage over the opposing team who begrudgingly wore the regulation teeny-bikini bottoms to avoid the 1,500 Euro fine. This inequality could even be considered performance enhancement. Yet again, it is definitely not sexism. This issue would simply never happen with male athletes because: penises.
Next, we’ll address the German women’s gymnastics team. This year, the team opted to cover their legs by wearing full-length unitards, as opposed to the regulation leotards that cut so high up women’s pelvic regions that Olympic enthusiasts are not only able to admire the impressive gymnastic maneuvers, but also ogle at whether Simone Biles shaved her entire vagina this morning, or if Sunisa Lee got a Brazilian wax yesterday. As these new unitards unjustly abolish the full view of 2/4’s of these women’s limbs, Olympic viewers are now restricted from observing whether their favorite female gymnast’s legs were moisturized that day, if she has spider veins or not, the precise shape of her calf muscles, and other important factors that are required to judge female athletes based solely upon their athletic performance.
This also causes issues for scoring. For example, let’s say a woman wearing a regulation high-cut leotard performs a routine consisting of double-flips, lay-outs, forward double-pike somersaults, and other various splits and tucks — she will finish her routine with a bow, a smile, and the immediate need to remove the inevitable super-wedgie from her ass hole; it will have thonged so far up there that she likely incurred minor anal bleeding. The judges will see this female athlete’s wedgie-pick and think, “Eww… butt cracks!” as they add up the scores.
But if women wear non-regulation full-legged unitards, wedgies will simply not happen. Thus, the judges won’t even be prompted to think about butt cracks, causing them to award these female athletes with appropriate scores. Again: unfair advantages. And no, this is not sexist. We permit male athletes to wear full-length unitards for some much-deserved modesty: after all, if men were also forced to sport high-cut leotards, their large penises might get too pokey-pokey or their mighty balls might get too saggy-saggy.
So there you have it. There are reasons: totally non-sexist, legitimate, athletic, performance-related reasons, for female athletes to dress more sexily — whoops, we mean attractively — eek, we mean less comfortably — oopsie, we mean more nakedly… than male athletes. Tune in to the Olympics! We will ensure that these bold female athletes follow and respect our important rules.
Kerry Webster Reynolds is a Massachusetts Creative Writing teacher who writes her own stuff sometimes. Words: Points in Case, The Belladonna, Slackjaw, The Daily Drunk, Little Old Lady Comedy, etc. Follow her! @KWebbyRey.