BAN IT! Down with bun huggers!

runnergirl26 wrote:

when i said look good i didn't mean to imply sexually, personally at an xc meet that is not something i concern myself with, not only do bun huggers make your legs look more defined and longer (which gives the appearance of a better/faster runner), but they look more intense and i fit in better with the girls at the front and not to seem rude but it further differentiates you from the girls in trainers and loose shorts in the back. its almost the opposite attitude of "i want to show my butt to get attention" and more of an attitude of "i'm so serious about running i don't care if i have it run in underwear/risk being a little embarrassed if it helps me run faster"

+1. This is the confidence/psychological boost thing I mentioned in my post just now. If I put on elite gear I feel like an elite runner. Doesn't matter whether it's spikes, bun huggers or a good brand of clothing instead of a cheap one, every item of racing kit that is of the best quality and design makes me feel good and is a sign of confidence my coach and athletics director have in me.

pojiohubhjb wrote:

XCJennaK wrote:

She literally cried? Does she ever swim, or wear a bikini on the beach?

Seriously, teams choosing race uniforms based on lame brains like her is not a route others should be taking.

Literally over 4 years of track and XC I saw her cry twice and the other time was after the death of one of our teammates. In my experience most teenage girls (even cross country runners) are not comfortable with their bodies. I remember her wearing shorts over her bikini bottom on the beach. We also would go in the pool for aqua jogging or recovery at least twice a week and we all wore shorts and sports bras in the pool.

So having to wear bun huggers was on the same level for her as a teammate dying? And she wouldn't wear bikini briefs without shorts on underneath on the beach or in the pool?

I don't want to take away anything from her suffering but she isn't typical. She has issues with body image that need help, irrespective of what she wears.

3. Even though I think the HS athletes shouldn’t have the bunhuggers, they are still going to have the choice. My worry is that even though the girls will have the choice to pick the either shorts or the bunhuggers, they will be coerced into choosing the shorts for fear of being labeled by parents as a young lady who is “asking for it,” and didn’t take her help when she offered it, rather than understanding that as a minor, there is no real reason for her body (or the boys' bodies) to be shown in this way at their ages.

My guess is the opposite would be true, that there might be pressure from the girls to choose the bunhugger because you don't want to be seen as a prude or a granny. The term "granny panty" is mostly a term girls use with each other not guys using, hence the massive sales of thongs in the Walmart teen department. Let the adults choose shorts for the girls so they don't have to make a political statement just to be comfortable running. And the gals whose default would be the "briefer" option can blame the adults too.

Carrot Top wrote:

My guess is the opposite would be true, that there might be pressure from the girls to choose the bunhugger because you don't want to be seen as a prude or a granny. The term "granny panty" is mostly a term girls use with each other not guys using, hence the massive sales of thongs in the Walmart teen department. Let the adults choose shorts for the girls so they don't have to make a political statement just to be comfortable running. And the gals whose default would be the "briefer" option can blame the adults too.

You could be right, but that's a good thing, surely. It's like the difference between a kid and an adult, a woman and a man, a hobby runner and one who's competitive. Bun huggers say you're an adult, a woman and a competitive runner. If a girl is given the choice of shorts or briefs and chooses the shorts then I think her friends and teammates putting pressure on her to go for the buns is helping her.

Meaghanisfast wrote:

Bun huggers say you're an adult, a woman and a competitive runner. If a girl is given the choice of shorts or briefs and chooses the shorts then I think her friends and teammates putting pressure on her to go for the buns is helping her.

JFC.

"Author Name" is registered wrote:

Some big assumptions about me based on this one opinion I have. I get that and ad hominen insults ("must spend a lot of time looking") in response to my opinion.

The hill I will fight and die on is "anything and everything not literally form-fitting to their buttcrack". If you want to argue with me, I'm waiting for you to tell me why women SHOULD wear something like that.

In America, we have the freedom to wear what we want.

Be a patriot, stop being weak.

I absolutely agree.

I think there will be a mix of both girls. Growing up, I was someone who never really cared about what my peers thought but I did care about what my parents/teachers/adults thought (which prompted me to write #3 from that perspective). But, absolutely, there are students who are more influenced by their peers and will feel the need to appease their teammates to fit in, just like in your scenario.

They should totally "let the adults choose ... so they don't have to make a political statement."

Briefs are not PURELY aesthetic. Yes, there's more drag in water than in the air but anyone who's ever worn loose fitting clothing on a windy day knows there's still some. However, any fitted garment solves this issue. So the next phase is what feels most comfortable. A full or capri tight can be too warm and restrict movement, shorter tights can often shift or ride up and can potentially restrict movement as well depending on the fit and construction. Briefs essentially avoid all of these issues. Are these all small factors? You bet. Can you succeed without them? Of course. Do they make a significant difference? Debatable. But there is a difference. That doesn't even take into account the placebo effect of feeling confident in looking good/fast.

So in the end it really comes down to what the athlete is most comfortable in. If briefs make you self-conscious, I think that would be considered fairly normal. A huge portion of the population wouldn't leave the house in something like that, save for maybe the beach, and they shouldn't have to. However, banning it entirely so that those who do prefer it aren't allowed to seems extreme and ridiculous.

If you can't offer an option at your school, then you should probably adhere to the lowest common denominator and pick a short that everyone is comfortable with.

I agree with all of this except the last sentence. Briefs make a lot of runners feel self conscious at first. The solution is to wear them and get used to them. Which means being on a team that mandates them, rather than allowing the option of shorts. If we believe that there are advantages to bun huggers, that's surely the logical way for teams to go.

9:24 steepler Nicole Bush weighs in, btw Citius has been really great since launching and much better than LRC with the way they take on controversial issues

I am with you. I buy standard shorts for the girls, but some choose to buy for themselves the solid, matching-color spandex for some races. None are ever bought by the team.

Devil Dog wrote:

I hate to sound like a feminist, but there's no good reason young girls need to wear bun huggers for cross country or track. Volleyball girls don't need to wear those shorts. Its nothing short of childhood sexualization. Really.

Hurdlers and jumpers can benefit from them.

The ancient Olympics' organizers had the right idea: everyone should be competing nude.

I don't understand why this is even an issue. The rules don't require the whole team to wear the same style, so there is no reason that we need to broadly choose between bun huggers and standard running shorts. Just let each athlete wear whichever they choose.

Yes, there’s more drag with loose-fitting clothing on a windy day, but Karen isn’t asking the young ladies to wear a wind sail or full capris during their meets. Please read the article before commenting. She’s asking that shorts AND spandex shorts be provided for those who want them. If the normal shorts are like gym/basketball shorts, then obviously the women wouldn’t pick them, but they still have the spandex shorts to fall back on. If they’re like the short XC shorts with the built in brief, then they’re a viable option in addition to the spandex shorts that will be provided, without having to be revealing. In the article Karen is literally quotes as saying “I believe that the line should be drawn at the butt cheek, and should go no further up, and they should have a choice of those spandex shorts or regular shorts.” They can still perform at a high level if they choose to wear the normal spandex shorts instead of the bunhuggers. I had a very successful career at my Division I program wearing normal spandex shorts and I believe someone posted a USA women’s relay pic of a few ladies (such as Allyson Felix) wearing them as well. If you want a HS example, Sydney McLaughlin is a Rio Olympian (who made it to the final might I add), IAAF Junior World Record holder, and two-time recipient of Gatorade Player of the Year and she wore spandex shorts and not bunhuggers.

Athlete comfort is definitely important, but if a girl is given a pair of spandex shorts and told to go compete and runs significantly slower it it’s not because she was SO physically uncomfortable in the spandex shorts. That is someone who is not a true competitor because she didn’t want it badly enough and her race-day confidence stemmed from “looking good” (to quote you) rather than from her training. Being an athlete has a lot more to do with your competitive nature than it has to do with the material resources one is given. There are plenty of people who run all around the world without even a pair of sneakers which is most definitely the most important piece of apparel in running, not shorts. (And before you say, “Well if shorts aren’t the most important, then why are people so worked up over them?” They are worked up over them because as a minor, there are no significant performance gains with wearing bunhuggers, however there are definitely awkward situations that can arise if people interpret a girl wearing bunhuggers as a signal that she is sexually mature, mentally and/or physically.) Being in a pair of spandex shorts vs. bunhuggers is hardly the disadvantage that should lead to poor performances.

I absolutely feel like women should wear bunhuggers if they want to, but should be given that option as adults and not as minors. I am also a woman and totally for women having say over their bodies, I’m just not for children wearing revealing clothing.

I have one issue with your post and one thing to (kind of) support:

Issue: The only issue I have with your post is the part about “awkward situations” arising because a girl is wearing bunhuggers. We shouldn’t assume that wearing less clothing is automatically going to make a young girl a target for predators. I get your concern, but most people are not trying sexually assault young women. The media constantly presents a stereotypical case of a young girl wearing less clothing as being someone who is a target and this is why you think this way.

I also feel that yes, although they are minors and it may be illegal for them to engage in sexual acts, sex itself is not an issue. Moreover it’s kind of a stretch to say that wearing revealing clothing is a sign of a sexually active person. The amount of clothing one wears has nothing to do with how much sex they are or aren’t having. Take someone like the Michelle Duggar from 19 Kids and Counting who has 19 children and is very modestly dressed mother. To say that the girls shouldn’t wear bunhuggers because they should be legally refraining from sex is saying that your clothing is an indicator of your sexual activity which it isn’t. And if by any chance wearing bunhuggers did make these girls more sexually active (which it isn’t), sex might not lead to pregnancy because it’s really the job of the education system to inform them on safe sexual practices, not the job of their clothing to hide them from sexual advances.

I totally understood where your post was coming from because a lot of people are concerned for the wellbeing of their daughters, sisters, etc. but covering her up isn’t going to prevent her from being a victim or from having sex. Education (for girls and boys) will.

Support: On the other hand, I agree with you that wearing bunhuggers is aesthetic because that little bit of fabric removed from the thigh surely has no effect and I liked your Allyson Felix and Sydney McLaughlin examples. I am all for women wanting to wear bunhuggers if they feel they look good in them, but why is it that women feel they look nicer when they wear less clothing? That's getting really deep and an entirely different discussion, but is something for these maturing young ladies to think about when they make the decision to pick spandex shorts or bunhuggers.

waat

jcoks wrote:

waat

Sweet firm young bums... Errrr...buns...I know that's what you're thinking.

"Modesty" is what these mothers are trying to promote.