Are bun huggers dead?

Look ok wrote:

This is the strangest letsrun thread I've ever seen - from pictures of women in bunhuggers to a civilized debate between posters who actually seem to be women? That goes against everything I knew about letsrun. Kudos to all involved!

We all know they are not really women. No way two women would refrain from making it a catfight.

In essentially every other sport, high schoolers wear the same uniforms as seen at the D1 and professional levels. Bun huggers are professional, deal with it. It's time to stop babying high schoolers. Some of you need a hard @ss coach that doesn't deal with the b*ll$hit.

If these are such a performance enhancer, why don't the professional women soccer players wear them? Yeah, I thought so, it is only about the culture, and not performance. If it is about performance so you can run faster, why do volleyballers wear those little tight shorts and heavy tops? Yeah I thought so, it is really a cultural thing,..

OK,OK. Say you are a coach and have one fineass ho on the team and a bunch of goblins. Do you require BHs so you can ogle the hottie, or do you go with shorts to save your eyes from the fatties?

I asked a major DI XC coach why he required his girls to wear bun huggers, and if any of his girls ever objected out of modesty. He said if they objected they wouldn't be running for him. And he said it doesn't really make them any faster, but it makes them think faster, so it is really a mental psychological thing and not so much a physical performmance thing.

Sensitive wrote:

OK,OK. Say you are a coach and have one fineass ho on the team and a bunch of goblins. Do you require BHs so you can ogle the hottie, or do you go with shorts to save your eyes from the fatties?

A mature coach would not have that dilemma to deal with.

But if the girls are going to train in boy shorts and race in bun huggers, at least get some tanning booth time so while we guys admire the view we aren't distracted by those ugly tan lines....

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.[/quote]

You wouldn't have much of a lawsuit. Really? Just call the AD and tell him/her you don't want your child wearing them.

I coach both boys and girls. The girls get two uniform bottoms- one bun huggers, one boy cut.

It is made clear to them and their parents that it is their choice.

Almost all of them choose bun huggers.

No parent has complanied.

When someone doesn't choose them- no one cares.

runn wrote:

You wouldn't have much of a lawsuit. Really? Just call the AD and tell him/her you don't want your child wearing them.

I coach both boys and girls. The girls get two uniform bottoms- one bun huggers, one boy cut.

It is made clear to them and their parents that it is their choice.

Almost all of them choose bun huggers.

No parent has complanied.

When someone doesn't choose them- no one cares.

The point is that not all coaches give the girls an option.

When I was forced to wear them I went to the AD and he said that other girls wear them so I should too. And that I was thin and didn't have bad legs and looked fine in them so why was I uncomfortable? It creeped me out, as I was in jeans and a t-shirt for that conversation so he had, I guess, checked out my body in a previous race.

And buns are not universal in the pro world. In the pro American world, yes (except for a few notable women pros who don't wear them), but look at any Olympics or WC and you'll see women in regular singlet and shorts.

Should be optional at all ages for all sexes, and sexual preferences.

But to add I can't help but laugh every time I see male photographers shoot while laying on the Mondo to get a picture of Galen Rupp's junk for their boyfriends ;-)

What about Volleyball? Is that any different?

I give our varsity girls team a choice. Shorts or spandex. I could care less so it's what the prefer.

I've found pics of elites wearing boy shorts (as above) and briefs as well. Obviously performance is not an issue with boy shorts.

runn wrote:

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.

You wouldn't have much of a lawsuit. Really? Just call the AD and tell him/her you don't want your child wearing them.

I coach both boys and girls. The girls get two uniform bottoms- one bun huggers, one boy cut.

It is made clear to them and their parents that it is their choice.

Almost all of them choose bun huggers.

No parent has complanied.

When someone doesn't choose them- no one cares.[/quote]

I'd intentionally pursue a lawsuit even if the AD acquiesced. The point is that schools should not be encouraging girls to wear lewd, revealing shorts in any capacity. The fact girls are given an option to wear bun huggers is outrageous. What's good for boys should be good for girls and vice versa. I am disgusted schools pay for bun huggers with my tax dollars.

another average american wrote:

When I was forced to wear them I went to the AD and he said that other girls wear them so I should too. And that I was thin and didn't have bad legs and looked fine in them so why was I uncomfortable? It creeped me out, as I was in jeans and a t-shirt for that conversation so he had, I guess, checked out my body in a previous race.

He probably wasn't being creepy, you're probably just dumb. How do you know he just hadn't seen you running in them. There's no indication that he "checked out" your body.

I haven't read this whole thread, but obviously know what the two sides believe, and....there really is no debate:

bun huggers are of course completely a fashion statement. Someone started the trend, others followed and...that was that. I love how some women pretend they are doing to be faster, and used to use swimmers as an example of why running in a bikini bottom made them faster. This highlights the absurdity of this side of the debate's "logic", because

A) moving thru water deals with a LOT more resistance than moving through air, and

B) Swimmers started getting faster when they started covering MORE skin, not less (full length suits had to be banned because they were too fast?)

Bun huggers look nice for the guys. Some girls feel sexy in them. Most are just following the crowd. But there is ZERO reason, performance-wise, to wear them. ZERO, and this beyond debate.

I'm sure he did see me running in them, which I think I mentioned. But that meant that when he saw me running, he noted that I was skinny, and that I had "nice legs" (whatever that means). I see where you're coming from, but it's really weird when a 50-year-old male AD tells a 14-year-old girl that she has a good body and has nice legs and shouldn't be afraid to rock the buns.

By "check out" I simply meant that he had seen me and remembered how the buns looked on me (although he certainly couldn't have told you what event I ran, or what times I ran, or who the competition was, etc.)

Regardless, it's inappropriate, whoever it's coming from. I would never tell one of my athletes that she has a great body for buns so shouldn't be self-conscious about them.

anybody? wrote:

Sensitive wrote:

OK,OK. Say you are a coach and have one fineass ho on the team and a bunch of goblins. Do you require BHs so you can ogle the hottie, or do you go with shorts to save your eyes from the fatties?

A mature coach would not have that dilemma to deal with.

A mature coach wouldn't be posting on LR.com

The issue about men wearing speedos if women are required to wear bun huggers brings to mind a frequent discussion among swimmers on the relative benefits (and self-consciousness inducing effects) of speedos with some guys preferring them and feeling they look and feel more professional and others (especially among younger swimmers) being reluctant to wear them due to being self-conscious. Consider this thread for instance--archived, but still relevant:

http://forums.usms.org/archive/index.php/t-20221.html

With high school girls, I've seen different looks on the same team and I think if it helps girls feel more comfortable at, say, 13, about going out for track, if they have a choice, then have the choice. By college, girls (especially at D1 schools) are more likely to focus on competing and (within reason) wear the prescribed uniform. Younger girls need time to assimilate. And as others have said, pro women often wear shorts/singlets and it doesn't seem to hold them back. Isn't it better to compete in what you find most comfortable so you're not distracted by what you're wearing? You need to stay focused to win. If clothes distract you from that focus, whatever supposed benefits they have are going to be canceled out.

Look, the ONLY reason for bun huggers is to show off a fineass. Lotsa chicks think they have one, but most don't. Whatever, they are only deluding themselves and injuring our eyes. Hasay looks way hotter in boy shorts. Goucher, please cover up; you think you're hot but you're not. There is no performance advantage to bun huggers. All this nonsense about young girls feeling embarassed, please, 12 year olds now all try to look 25 year old hookers.