Are bun huggers dead?

Cate wrote:

On the contrary, way back when I saw this thread I said there were two reasons why guys can't run in buns. First, they need more support down there than we do, and can get very serious injuries from being unsupported. And second, because of the differences in anatomy, huggers would be a lot more revealing for them than they are for us. If my boyfriend wore my bun huggers you'd be able to tell he was circumcised. Which would be pretty hot, actually, but not fair for him.

What are you jabbering about?

Men in many sports wear skin-tight clothing. Swimming. Rowing. Speedskating. Um, RUNNING.

If it is really about performance, as you say, then men should not be wearing shorts with loose flapping material, should they? Strictly enough for support would mean something along the lines of speedo. Buns, basically. Do you even see how flimsy your argument is?

And here's a fascinating fact: most Kenyans (and many other runners) don't wear anything for "support" under their running shorts, and there is not an epidemic of "very serious injuries" from that. You know why? Because that's something you made up.

my coach flat out refuses to allow us to wear them. He says they are too sexual...really WTF?!So, I just make my shorts basically like bun huggers to pis him off!

zzzz wrote:

Most guys probably just use the super thin liners that come in lined running shorts without additional underwear underneath. The liners are loose enough that they don't really support anything. The purpose of the liner is mainly to keep things decent and hidden - otherwise private parts might be visible when the shorts ride up, or when sitting down, or if someone puts a leg up to stretch or something.

I'm 44, and I've never owned or used a jock strap. The last I heard of them was around junior high - maybe people wore them back then? I haven't notice them in online running stores or anything like that, though I haven't searched.

You are right. Cate is simply making up that most male runners wear a "jock strap" for support.

You say that it's more common for runners to be forced to wear buns than are forced not to (which equates to being forced to wear shorts). I disagree. At race meets you'll see three types of team: ones where everyone is in buns, others where they're all in shorts, and ones that permit a mix.

IMO the last option looks even less professional than shorts, and in some states is not permitted. On both the all-buns and all-shorts teams, there could be some runners who would rather be wearing the other type of uniform. Without conducting a survey we can't know which contains the bigger number of unhappy runners, but anecdotally I've said that I've met a lot of girls who were nervous about buns or outright hated them when first made to run in them but who came to love them once they'd overcome their nerves or self consciousness.

My argument for buns being mandatory is partly that it forces nervous runners to get used to them, but also that nerves are less likely to be a problem if everyone is dressed the same. Mainly though it's that they're the best for performance and projecting a professional image for the team.

Re shorts and support, I was talking about guys' ones, not ones for girls/women. Guys' running shorts contain built-in jock straps to prevent their private parts from moving around, which can damage them and even cause infertility. A few people on this thread have said 'If buns really improve performance, why don't guys wear them?' My answer has been 'They help women and girls achieve better performance, but if guys wore them, they'd get injured (plus it would be indecent)'

Cate wrote:

Re shorts and support, I was talking about guys' ones, not ones for girls/women. Guys' running shorts contain built-in jock straps to prevent their private parts from moving around, which can damage them and even cause infertility.

Again,not true. I don't know why you keep repeating this throughout the thread, when people have corrected your misperception repeatedly. I addressed this a few posts back, and others have mentioned it too much earlier in the thread. If you actually look at a guy's running shorts - I have a bunch in my closet and wear them in the summer, so I know what they look and feel like - they do not have built in jock straps. The liners are very flimsy, very thin, very loose, don't compress the privates against the body, and are much LESS supportive than something like a tighty whitey (underwear brief), a women's bunhugger, or a guy's Speedo. Only loose boxer shorts have less support. I and most runner guys wear these shorts with these flimsy liners with no other support. The liner is for modesty - so the privates don't pop out when sitting down or if the shorts ride up, or other situations.

Guys don't wear jock straps for running. I don't even know where you can buy one. I've never seen one at a running store or department store. Guys don't need support to prevent damage or infertility from running.

Sports that might need a jock or cup are like wrestling or football where there is potential for physical impact or grabbing/snagging.

Cate wrote:

My argument for buns being mandatory is partly that it forces nervous runners to get used to them, but also that nerves are less likely to be a problem if everyone is dressed the same. Mainly though it's that they're the best for performance and projecting a professional image for the team.

Ultimately, running is an individual sport. The part of the sport where other people are forcing nervous runners to wear clothing that they are uncomfortable is not running, it's unnecessary social pressure BS.

My girlfriend didn't have to wear bunhuggers in college (she was the top runner on the team most of the time she was there), and she would have refused. She's at least as stubborn as you, and she doesn't wear bikini bottoms when swimming or at the beach either - she prefers the modesty and style of surf shorts. What would be the point of forcing a stubborn adult woman like her to wear bunhuggers? You're idea of "forcing people to get used to them" make it sound almost like a initiation rite in the Greek system. Yuck.

Cate wrote:

Re shorts and support, I was talking about guys' ones, not ones for girls/women. Guys' running shorts contain built-in jock straps to prevent their private parts from moving around, which can damage them and even cause infertility. A few people on this thread have said 'If buns really improve performance, why don't guys wear them?' My answer has been 'They help women and girls achieve better performance, but if guys wore them, they'd get injured (plus it would be indecent)'

Again, you're not answering what part of the short other than the liner provides support. The liner provides support. The liner is equivalent to buns. The two inches of fabric is what differentiates shorts from buns. What part of the fabric provides support? It doesn't! The only part of the shorts that provides support is the portion equivalent to buns.

(Also, your definition of "indecent" is just that--yours. Other people think some of the pics posted on this thread are indecent. And others don't think that guys in speedos are indecent at all.)

Sarah (Porter) Crouch...

http://www.doubleroadracesanjuanbautista.com/sanjuan/nui/u/images/IMGL0473.JPG

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6234/6325726965_3bd62b407c_o.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nr06GhSySCg/TrlyM8AhAOI/AAAAAAAAC1I/BlGHibXaXM4/s1600/ZVIK1093.JPG

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjan9/6338144614/lightbox/

If I saw her at the supermarket in getting vegetables in those bunhuggers I would definitely walk up and say hello.

There is something very sexyhot about a lady shopping in bunhuggers. You heard it here first folks.

Only smoking hot slim young girls should wear bun huggers. The only reason to wear them is to show off a fine butt. No old seahags or goblins should ever wear them. Hasay is not hot enough to wear them, Kara is way too old and way too not hot enough.

Also, no man should ever wear speedos or tights. It looks terrible.

No they are not dead. Most of the top women in the NCAA were wearing them last week. A majority of these women are wearing bunhuggers-

http://www.letsrun.com/photos/2013/ncaa-cross-country-photos-women/index3.php

I think every woman should be required by law to wear bunhuggers at all times, with absolutely no exceptions.

Lisa Uhl...

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/iowastatedaily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/cb/7cb19226-658a-11e1-8b02-0019bb2963f4/4f52ac4eefe32.image.jpg

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/iowastatedaily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/be/7bea94d2-658a-11e1-bbe3-0019bb2963f4/4f52ac4da6204.image.jpg

http://www.parkereshelman.com/blog/051610_011_big12track.JPG

Keep it going... wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Sheila_Reid_2012_Olympics.jpghttp://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Shalaya+Kipp+2012+Olympic+Track+Field+Team+wBHW8mz0MI5x.jpghttp://www.researchedrunning.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Emma-Coburn.jpg

I've noticed a lot of guys post links to pics of girls in bun huggers, saying they look hot. And yet the main reason why some women are reluctant to wear them is that they think they're unflattering.

This makes me think maybe runners who don't want to wear bun huggers have some underlying body image issues.

Are bun huggers that important to the vast majority of female runner? I've been to many road races and almost no age group women runners wear bun huggers. Only the elite women runners wear them. I have two female friends who are super serious runners who run road races often (from 5K to the marathon) and they never wear bun huggers. It's never occurred to them to do so. They either wear boy shorts or form fitting running pants.

Cate wrote:

This makes me think maybe runners who don't want to wear bun huggers have some underlying body image issues.

And maybe many who do wear them do so for the attention that their racing skills can't deliver.

A bit too much bun in this hugger.