Immodesty with athletes


Do women consider the pants baseball or football players wear immodest?


Ummm, no. :confused:


There’s a certain - obvious - exemption from the standards of modesty in regards to sportswear. It’s hardly a sexualised thing you see, it’s just mere practicality.


I don’t. :shrug:


no, why do you ask? You have to consider that in any atheletic type of clothing or uniform that it needs to allow the atheletes to move and perform as well as allow body heat to escape.


NO! In fact, I can’t imagine anyone thinking that NFL uniforms are not modest. NBA uniforms are also not sexy in anyway shape or form! Please, if you are having these thoughts, you might need help in overcoming scrupulosity.


Perhaps you might recall that originally all athletes in Ancient Greece in the Olympic Games were naked & were seen as perfectly natural. Swimwear is also a new invention; all men & boys swam naked in C19th and before. (Of course women never swam!!)

Why certain bodily parts are offensive and others are not is a mystery to me. Feet are ugly in general & should always be covered. Did the Creator make a mistake with the human body which is said to be God-like? I fear this is just one more Western hang-up.




Why thw question. The baseball pants are normally worn as almost slacks or jeans. I can see the football pants as a topic of, do they look like tights but I dont see why it would offend or upset anybody.


Agreed again.

Except I happen to have very pretty feet…


Not for playing sports, but if I saw a guy walking around town wearing football tights I’d think they were pretty something (immodest would be one thing, but other adjectives might come to mind first).

It’s like leotards or swimsuits, or even evening gowns - one can be appropriate in one setting can be immodest and/or ostentatious in another.


Curious, though, why does mens’ athletic wear tend to be lose fitting, and womens’ athletic wear tend to be tight-fitting with midriff-baring tops?


Aren’t men’s tight fitting too?

And the no midriff is probably bc it would look like the guy was wearing a sports bra lol. I’m not sure though.

One of the acceptations to this though, is swimming… in which women have to wear a one piece starting from their sternum going all the way down to almost their knees, while men are covering up nothing but their privates bc any piece of clothing will cause drag and slow them down.


But couldn’t a woman’s “sports bra” be integrated into a longer garment that extended past the waist?


In which sport do they do the sports bra thing?


Running, for example.

(Warning! May contain belly buttons!)

Why does the top have to be cut so short?


Yes. The current trend in sports undershirts and shorts is an uber-tight “compression-fit”, with Under Armour leading the way. Nike’s line is called “Pro Combat”, which I find pretty silly.


I would be more concerned with men’s swimwear as seen at Olympic events. That makes NFL and baseball outfits seem positively Victorian.

Also…women’s gymnastics and synchronized swimming costumes should cover up a little more than they show off.


Female athletes got to look sexy, or they don’t get sponsors.


I do have to say I really, really like compression fit bottoms for running (and mine are always capris or pants). They are definitely practical for that purpose.

I really enjoy the athleticism involved in beach volleyball, but the usual “uniform” is pretty minimal. I guess London’s cold summers are good for something, though, because in 2012 the athletes were covered up plenty to play. :stuck_out_tongue:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit