Are bun huggers dead?

Cate wrote:

Men have external parts that can be damaged by jigging about. In fact, it can make them infertile or impotent. So they are forced to wear more modest and less efficient running attire than us.

"Cate," you STILL haven't addressed AAA's point. In fact, you keep dodging it with every single post.

If women should wear the least possible amount of covering that prevents free movement of tissue (breasts) while covering genitalia, YOUR SAME ARGUMENT suggests VERY CLEARLY that men should wear speedo. That's pretty clear.

And yet you advocate for men to wear flapping, draping fabric shorts when we could mandate brief-length (or shorter) spandex for all men? Why are you "generous" to women but restrict men from the "privilege" of wearing the least possible amount of coverage that is still functional?

Women should be forced to wear body paint uniforms.

http://verybestphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Kate-Upton-Body-Paint-Swimsuit-Model-2.png

Cate wrote:

As for personal grooming, sorry but I think it's gross to suggest anyone old enough to have to take care of that wouldn't do it.

The average age for pubic hair in American girls is now what? 13? 12?

Do you really think that 12 year-olds, who are "old enough to have to take care of that" should be shaving or waxing to your satisfaction?

Hint: Nobody "has" to "take care of anything" they don't want to. And certainly not at 12-13?

I think it's safe to say this posters isn't even a woman.

Putter in place wrote:

I don't know about bun huggers, but I hear that Xfitguy_the_real_one_1 wears those Lululemon yoga pants that are so sheer that they had to be recalled.

This is crossfit:

This should be mandatory for all female athletes: https://showyou.com/v/h-Uh0Gh3PS7k7fodnC/this-aerobic-video-wins-everything?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=timeline

I hug buns every chance I get.

BHs are prime on fineass hos, but hideous on fatties n muffintops.

Simoza wrote:

This should be mandatory for all female athletes:

https://showyou.com/v/h-Uh0Gh3PS7k7fodnC/this-aerobic-video-wins-everything?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=timeline

\

Good Lord that was absolutely awful. My eyes hurt.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

Cate wrote:

Men have external parts that can be damaged by jigging about. In fact, it can make them infertile or impotent. So they are forced to wear more modest and less efficient running attire than us.

"Cate," you STILL haven't addressed AAA's point. In fact, you keep dodging it with every single post.

If women should wear the least possible amount of covering that prevents free movement of tissue (breasts) while covering genitalia, YOUR SAME ARGUMENT suggests VERY CLEARLY that men should wear speedo. That's pretty clear.

And yet you advocate for men to wear flapping, draping fabric shorts when we could mandate brief-length (or shorter) spandex for all men? Why are you "generous" to women but restrict men from the "privilege" of wearing the least possible amount of coverage that is still functional?

No, I answered this point earlier. A sports bra keeps everything in place for us up top, while bun huggers is all we need down below as our reproductive bits are all internal. Speedos don't have the same effect for men's private parts that bras do for our breasts. If they ran in speedos, they'd get frequent injuries. So the best compromise between performance and injury avoidance for men involves them wearing more below the waist than we need to. Plus even if they wore athletic supports and tight spandex shorts there would be obvious modesty issues that don't occur for girls and women in buns.

Personally, I'd love to see men run in speedos. In fact, I'd pay entrance fees to running events for the sole purpose of observing the hilarious spectacle.

Cate wrote:

No, I answered this point earlier. A sports bra keeps everything in place for us up top, while bun huggers is all we need down below as our reproductive bits are all internal. Speedos don't have the same effect for men's private parts that bras do for our breasts. If they ran in speedos, they'd get frequent injuries. So the best compromise between performance and injury avoidance for men involves them wearing more below the waist than we need to. Plus even if they wore athletic supports and tight spandex shorts there would be obvious modesty issues that don't occur for girls and women in buns.

Actually, much of racing shorts don't perform any sort of support function at all. How does the extra inch or two of very loose fabric on shorts vs. buns provide extra support? Not following. Men could just cut off all fabric but the fabric that actually provides support.

And according to your logic men should be running topless, yet they don't.

And how are "modesty issues" as you put it relating to wearing tight-fitting shorts around men's external genitalia any different than than "modesty issues" of women running in bras or tight tanks? Women's "external extras" are simply on top rather than on the bottom and nobody thinks there are "obvious modesty issues" with women running in form-fitting tops. It's simple: society has said that women can and should reveal themselves and their bodies to a different standard than men.

Which is a fine argument to make. You can just say that in our society there's a double standard and women are forced to wear less and that's just how it is in our culture and we need to accept it, but then I think *that* needs to be your argument rather than arguments about support that don't really make sense. But I don't think you would actually agree with that argument.

"1. Should women race in sports bras, uncovered by singlets?"

Yes. Better yet, no bras either. Some laws have to be changed.

"2. Should men race in speedos and bare chests?"

No. Men are ugly and should wear burqas.

Also you're saying isinbayevas's buns looks like a man's? LOL. You're the one who needs to "question your...perspective". You may be... homosexual.

It's not the shorts that give men support, it's the jock straps they wear underneath. Yes, in theory they could run in *just* their jocks, but that would mean a lot of exposure for them, much more than buns for us.

Yes, there's a logic for men running topless. You wouldn't find me complaining if they did :-). But again, that's an extreme amount of exposure, like us running bottomless rather than in buns. And some of the guys at my college go shirtless for practice runs. Hot or what? They need shirts for race meets for identification purposes sadly.

A sports bra intended as outerwear or a tank top show the general shape of our breasts, but no more than that. Bun huggers don't reveal anything about our genitals, so they're much less of an issue IMO.

I don't think the female runners who prefer buns or the coaches and ADs who insist they wear them are imposing a double standard, they are just favoring a form of attire well suited to the sport and to the female body. Men get to wear slightly more on their lower bodies because they have different bodies, that's all.

After reading through this thread, I think there's no chance the Cate is female.

Well, we definitely haven't convinced each other :) I disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote, but at this point we're just rehashing the same old arguments so I won't make those anymore.

I think a key point, and what this all comes down to, is your qualification of your statement above with "IMO." Your assertions about what types of modesty take priority over other types of modesty are your opinions. You really can't force your personal modesty grading on everyone else.

All I'll say is that none of my athletes will EVER be forced to wear them, and if I have a daughter and she wants to run and would prefer not to wear them, you can bet she won't be wearing them. It's definitely something I would take up with a coach, AD, and then the school board if needed. I'm not a pushy person normally, but that's how strongly I feel about this. No child should barred from running because they don't want to race in their underwear.

required login name wrote:

After reading through this thread, I think there's no chance the Cate is female.

I'm 100% female and proud of it, which is why I'm happy to run in buns.

another average american wrote:All if I have a daughter and she wants to run and would prefer not to wear them, you can bet she won't be wearing them. It's definitely something I would take up with a coach, AD, and then the school board if needed. I'm not a pushy person normally, but that's how strongly I feel about this. No child should barred from running because they don't want to race in their underwear.

I'd sue the school district if they made my daughter run in those lewd shorts. It's egregious to force a young child to wear revealing clothes like bun huggers.

Oh, and one more random thought I forgot to mention. Female throwers aren't required to wear buns. Yet if that's the required team uniform that every athlete is supposed to wear, why is there an exception for them? Occasionally you'll have a "throwers 4x1" team, and they still aren't required to wear them even when running.

If we're females and proud of our bodies and it has nothing to do with modesty? As you mentioned, Cate, it's not a beauty contest so we shouldn't be ashamed of a little jiggle...It's because we understand at a certain level that forcing buns on everyone would be humiliating for some girls.

**It's possible and legit for some girls to be so humiliated by buns that it would be unquestionably cruel to force them them to do wear buns. Period.** Which is why there are exceptions for throwers. So who is the coach to determine who is fat enough to be humiliated and who isn't?

Fat throwers get to opt out, but skinny runners can't. Not only is forcing buns on girls sexist, but it's "event-ist" :)

Now what about fat runners who yes, are trying to lose weight? Or skinny runners that just *feel* fat and would be just as humiliated as a thrower? It's just so problematic in so many areas.

I agree - we should agree to disagree :-).

I can see what concerns you, that some girls feel nervous about racing in bun huggers and it might be easier to recruit new runners if they were allowed to wear shorts. You may be right. It's true that there were girls who were uncomfortable about wearing them when we joined the XC team last year. If they'd been offered the option of shorts, some might have taken them. However the fact that buns were mandatory meant they had no alternative, plus there was a sense of us all wearing the same so none of us feeling more exposed or noticeable than anyone else.

Also I think it's a lot more professional when the whole team is in the same uniform. I've been to meetings where there are teams half in buns and half in shorts, and I don't think it's a good look (though better than having everyone in shorts).