Lotta creepy folks who can't stop themselves from sexualizing teenagers here.
Wear what makes you feel fast. End of story.
Lotta creepy folks who can't stop themselves from sexualizing teenagers here.
Wear what makes you feel fast. End of story.
moose lake wrote:
R1200 wrote:
I'm saying that bun huggers dont make girls look older or more sexual any more than wrestling singlets or lycra swimsuits do for boys.
Wrong, men and women react differently to sexual visual imagery. That's a fact, deny it if you'd like.
R1200 wrote:
It makes them look exactly as old and sexual as they are. The bun hugger doesnt change anything.
Wrong, your average male is more sexually stimulated by bun huggers than regular shorts. Jesus, have you read the replies in this thread and the 19 pages from the one a few years ago?
Why people deny reality is beyond me.
I never said men and women dont react differently to "sexual visual imagery" Why would I deny it? I just dont think it matters. Boys are going to view girls however they view them and I dont believe the bun hugger changes that.
If they get sexually stimulated, so what? They are a normal male. Learn to live with it like we all do.
moose lake wrote:
I'm simply asking if you acknowledge there's a component of sexualization of the athlete when wearing them whether it's intended or not. And I'm not trying to "fault" anyone for it. Just accepting reality. Honestly, I'd appreciate input even if you disagree with me.
Couldn't the same be said of anything an athlete wears?
https://youtu.be/NEgwxGWgiIgSara Palin wrote:
Not really. Karen Garconnier doesn't like her daughter wearing bun huggers. My favorite qoute is:
"Then why aren’t the boys wearing it? The boys don’t have to subject themselves to this."
I don't want to imagine the wardrobe malfunctions if a bunch of 14 year old boys were wearing them
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/10/16/sayville-cross-country/
Sounds like our athletic director.
moose lake wrote:
Meaghanisfast wrote:The idea that girls wear them simply to show off their booties and attract guys seems the assumption of the helicopter mom who started the petition.
Others may make this argument, but not me. I'm simply asking if you acknowledge there's a component of sexualization of the athlete when wearing them whether it's intended or not. And I'm not trying to "fault" anyone for it. Just accepting reality. Honestly, I'd appreciate input even if you disagree with me.
There must be tens if not hundreds of thousands of people involved in the decision to wear bun huggers or not. Athletics directors and coaches. Runners too, in teams that take a vote or allow both types of bottoms, or like me who choose a college or other team partly because they want to wear the buns (or avoid them). Friends and family. Sponsors. How can anyone possibly generalize about the motivations of all of them?
Both the AD and coach of my college XC team are women. Straight ones, with husbands and children of their own. Neither of them issue us with bun huggers because they want to sexualize us. They do it because they're ex athletes themselves and believe it's the best running gear available for women.
I headed over to Milesplit to look at the article about the crazy mom and her campaign. Something occurred to me, which is that most of those who see briefs as sexual are men. Not young guys who might be in the boys' or men's teams alongside female runners in them but older guys, fathers or coaches. It's my guess they're worrying unnecessarily, because younger guys don't see it that way at all.
With the Weinstein story still all over social media I'm acutely conscious of how many men harass women and worse. As a runner I've been catcalled and grabbed while running, but so far always in sweats or other less revealing gear, so far never when I've been in buns. So I don't believe they encourage guys to see us as sex objects, in fact maybe the opposite, they respect us more.
thanks for the response!
KEEP IT.
Shorts, bun huggers, bikinis, whatever.
If you prefer everyone covered up, move to a Muslim country.
Just don't tell Mom about the story on the home page about pole dancing now being a recognized sport:
Because it's not sexual at all!
Stop sexualizing women twirling on poles!
You must have a dirty mind, you pervert!
I am betting that Harvey Weinstein is okay with bun huggers.
Most state associations have clear regulations on HS uniforms. To me, that's the last word. A wise coach will however encourage uniforms that are practical and that their athletes overall like. Yes, girls' shorts tend to be shorter, but there are plenty which are modest and yet functional. I don't see the merit of the argument some posters have made that boys are not subjected to the same things, because our sprinters, jumpers, and vaulters are in lycra shorts which are about as body-defining. Boys on the swim team wear less than the girls, for that matter, but still their uniforms are appropriate and modest enough for the sport.
If young athletes whether female or male are wearing athletic gear made for their sports and intended for such, I don't see an issue. If a specific athlete has an issue with what they are to wear, the coach should be sensitive insofar as possible and seek some remedy that makes that athlete comfortable. Otherwise, I think all this is a moot point.
Me and Harv like thongs better.
Why can't they run in thongs since they're lighter and allow more freedom than bun huggers?
Dear Meganisfast:
How do you know this...did you read their minds?
"I headed over to Milesplit to look at the article about the crazy mom and her campaign. Something occurred to me, which is that most of those who see briefs as sexual are men. Not young guys who might be in the boys' or men's teams alongside female runners in them but older guys, fathers or coaches. It's my guess they're worrying unnecessarily, because younger guys don't see it that way at all."
What you really mean is that you do not mind the young guys looking, it's another thing to have the dirty old men staring. What you have to understand is we did not grow up with that. It's true we may actually be a little jealous but then again we are probably mostly shocked by this behavior.
As for young women they think the more skin they show the cuter they will be.
I would like for some woman to come on here and explain why short shorts are inferior for racing compared to "the buns."
I think there is a strong feeling among women to get married while they are young and hot. They do not realize that those "loving feelings," they are inspiring will not hold up in the long run. Pardon the pun.
only sport with cover charges wrote:
Just don't tell Mom about the story on the home page about pole dancing now being a recognized sport:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/16/pole-dancing-now-recognised-international-sports-body-leaving/Because it's not sexual at all!
10/10
Exactamondo!
Stop sexualizing women twirling on poles!
You must have a dirty mind, you pervert!
Squat or not wrote:
Whether or not a runner wears buns or spandex or shorts should be decided by the runner, not the team or coach.
If a runner wants to wear buns and their mom doesn’t want her too because she finds them too revealing, that mom would not be happy to realize how her daughter will lash out.
Nope. I'm the coach and the decision lies with me alone. I'm not going to allow athletes that come and go on the team to take the team in any direction they want.
When I first started coaching at a high school the girls were in secret heated battle about this. When I found out I put a quick end to it. Our kids are going to have matching uniforms when we compete. With us it's never going to be "they can wear whatever they want." When was the last basketball, hockey, soccer, or football game that you have watched where the players were all wearing different uniforms? Sure, some teams do, but not us. Again, I'm the coach and I'm in charge.
So that's it. Our girls wear shorts mostly because a lot of our girls were uncomfortable with the idea of wearing the bikini briefs. None of the girls are uncomfortable wearing shorts and I don't believe either choice would make a performance difference. I care about all of my athletes and refuse to make any of them feel uncomfortable if it is not necessary to do so.
We make some decisions as a team but not this one.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
Teaching Students wrote:This thread shows how LRC posters are in general under 30.
"Young and stupid is no way to go through life."
Animal House
America needs to return to church---FAST!!!
If America returned to church, we'd learn that original sin was shame of the naked human body. You want these young women to race nude? You sick pervert.
The correct quote is "fat, drunk, and stupid...", by the way.
Thank you for responding. I was wrong on the Animal House quote.
As for going to Church the problem we have now is that many people have their own little church. In a sense there are millions of churches in America. Most are false churches. You and I do not get to decide what "the man upstairs," is like. We have to read the whole thing and study with someone who is well-versed with what it meant at the time it was written.
I agree.See how the sri Lankan runner is dressed?It is how it used to be.Perfect.
cover it up wrote:
The solution to this problem is simple:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/19/article-1046912-025704B600000578-898_468x546.jpgBuy some new gear and you get happy moms.
Boom.
Love this. Will done, coach.