Are bun huggers dead?

What? I'm from Europe, and I'm pretty sure most shower/bathe every day. But of course you're just a troll.

aspiring bun hugger wrote:

I feel this thread needs more pictures (and videos). I hope these weren't posted already:

http://i.imgur.com/JCAxw.jpghttp://www.macsportsphotos.net/d/124100-2/2005_10_29_ccwomen286.jpghttp://farm4.staticflickr.com/3237/3093900225_14d8c196cc_z.jpg?zz=1

Thank you. I check this thread regularly for interesting posts, but mostly I just find drivel about feminism, Muslims and whatnot.

track official wrote:

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.

I think the performance advantage is physical and not just mental (try running into the wind in a singlet and shorts, then try again in a sports bra and buns). But I do think there's a mental effect too, as with a good pair of running shoes. You know you've got the best kit, so if your times are bad, it's your fault, not the gear's.

irate parent wrote:

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.

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.[/quote]

You're against female runners being issued with bun huggers - even as an option? And how about the swim team? Waterproof burkhas for them?

Ok, back to Ingvill Bovim.

http://www.vgtv.no/#

!/video/43384/saa-glad-ble-ingvill-maakestad-bovim-for-sjetteplassen-i-vm

aspiring bun hugger wrote:

I feel this thread needs more pictures (and videos). I hope these weren't posted already:

http://i.imgur.com/JCAxw.jpghttp://www.macsportsphotos.net/d/124100-2/2005_10_29_ccwomen286.jpghttp://farm4.staticflickr.com/3237/3093900225_14d8c196cc_z.jpg?zz=1

You probably like those images for unwholesome reasons. But when I see them they make me glad to be a runner. It's almost like a female solidarity thing, we're running, and we're dressed for it. Does that make sense to the anti-bun people here?

So if it is a headwind issue, why are they still required for the indoor season, and not just the runners but the jumpers too? At indoor college meets, it seems to me that the jumpers are more self concious about their skimpy attire than the runners, maybe because they are standing and walking a lot around people with more clothes than them; and I also feel sorry for the horiz jumpers having to brush sand out of the crevices. It seems to me the molly huddle shorts would be just fine indoors.

Again, it aint about performance. I only want to see hotties in bunhuggers. I never want to see some unwashed eurotrash dude in speedos or tights. I dont want to see any british teeth.

I was an assistant coach at a mid level D1 school for quite some time. We had a large women's xc team to keep up with gender equity. We had all kinds of runners, 16:xx- 22:xx 5k types. I was in charge of making our Nike order each year. I would ask each athlete what they wanted, boy cut shorts, split, or bunhuggers. The answers were fairly consistent. On avg. I would order 17 boy cut, 6 split shorts, and 2 briefs or bunhuggers.

Cate wrote:

You probably like those images for unwholesome reasons. But when I see them they make me glad to be a runner. It's almost like a female solidarity thing, we're running, and we're dressed for it. Does that make sense to the anti-bun people here?

No, it really doesn't! Don't understand that at all.

Why are they called boy shorts when a dude would most likely not wear something like it?

sigkill wrote:

- AAA is spot on with her comments about her AD. An older person in a position of power compliment a minor on having nice legs? Very, very sleazy, and not even relevant to the debate at hand. If "you have nice legs" is a valid reason to make a girl wear bun huggers, "you have a nice package" should be a good reason to have the guys wear codpieces. They're both equally essential to the sport - that is, they aren't.

No, she is not spot on. The AD was likely just telling her that she isn't fat and shouldn't feel insecure. Leave it to a dumb girl to start spreading around tales about how someone was being creepy and sleazy. And no, legs are not the equivalent of penises.

And to AAA, why is it automatically creepy that he recognized you and recalled what you look like? Most of my teachers and coaches could recognize just about everyone in the school whether they were boys or girls. Have you never seen someone once and still recognized them the next time you saw them? Were you being creepy just because you remembered seeing them?

iisk wrote:

No, she is not spot on. The AD was likely just telling her that she isn't fat and shouldn't feel insecure. Leave it to a dumb girl to start spreading around tales about how someone was being creepy and sleazy. And no, legs are not the equivalent of penises.

And to AAA, why is it automatically creepy that he recognized you and recalled what you look like? Most of my teachers and coaches could recognize just about everyone in the school whether they were boys or girls. Have you never seen someone once and still recognized them the next time you saw them? Were you being creepy just because you remembered seeing them?

I see your point. He was a football coach and didn't know or care about track. The fact that he remembered what I looked like probably wasn't creepy. Commenting on my "nice legs" was. I still absolutely maintain that it is inappropriate to suggest that a skinny 14-year-old should be proud of her body but but a heavier (not even heavy, just heavier) girl should not, and that was the crux of his argument. So in fairness I'll retract the notion that him simply remembering my body was creepy; it was the commenting on my legs that did it.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

Cate wrote:

You probably like those images for unwholesome reasons.

"unwholesome reasons" ?? It's "unwholesome" to be attracted to the body of an attractive person of the opposite sex? If she is wearing no or less or tighter clothing, this attraction is more likely to occur. Nothing unwholesome about it, it's just reality.

quote]Cate wrote:But when I see them they make me glad to be a runner. It's almost like a female solidarity thing, we're running, and we're dressed for it. Does that make sense to the anti-bun people here?[/quote]

No, it doesn't. Because PRE bun-huggers, was there no "female solidarity" thing going on? Only bun huggers makes it so? That makes no sense.

Once again, to some of the other posters: there is absolutely no measurable performance advantage to bun huggers, stopping being ignorant or disingenuous on that point. Honest/real reason to wear them: because women think they look good in them, or are just following the fashion trend. And that's fine. I like looking at them. But let's not make up dumb reasons to wear them.

I think you are reading too far into this. I doubt he wanted heavier girls to not be proud of their bodies, he could have just been saying you can pull them off. Let's be realistic, different body types can pull off or work in different attire. It's ridiculous to try to put everyone on the same level and pretend like we're all the same.

I'm a skinny runner with small arms, therefore I don't pull off a muscle shirt the same way a muscular football player could. That's life.

Cate wrote:

You're against female runners being issued with bun huggers - even as an option? And how about the swim team? Waterproof burkhas for them?

Yes, I am. It is not appropriate for coaches and/or the school to encourage girls to wear revealing clothing. I'd feel the same way if swim teams offered girls the choice of wearing bikinis vs. one-piece mallets. Any coach providing bun huggers as an option for his/her female athletes should be lynched.

aspiring bun hugger wrote:

I feel this thread needs more pictures (and videos). I hope these weren't posted already:

http://i.imgur.com/JCAxw.jpghttp://www.macsportsphotos.net/d/124100-2/2005_10_29_ccwomen286.jpghttp://farm4.staticflickr.com/3237/3093900225_14d8c196cc_z.jpg?zz=1

You are a good man my friend. Thank you for those nice buns.

irate parent wrote:

Any coach providing bun huggers as an option for his/her female athletes should be lynched.

Wow, you know how I know you're crazy?

Nature gave girls a healthy labido. Female human biology allows girls to decide for themselves to show their stuff so they can attract a mate and continue their blood line. To blame male coaches for this natural process is ridiculous. Nature has made girls this way. If humans were not interested in propagating their species, none of us would be here today.