BAN IT! Down with bun huggers!

perhaps someone should ask joan benoit sameulson if running in shorts is a disadvantage.

I can't believe this thread has 9 pages of responses! What's the record for a non -spam thread related to women's running? The concept of a team uniform is to all be the same. Actually, in WA state, track relay teams must all wear the same style shorts. I think if one or two girls did not feel comfortable with whatever choice her coach or teammates had made, it would be hard to be the odd one(s) out. Being a teenager can be tough, have a little sympathy.

FightFor15 wrote:

http://citiusmag.com/ban-the-cross-country-uniform-bun-debate/

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

Glad to hear that Bush is a big supporter of briefs.

This may finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back with regard to the anti-bun crowd.

Not to get too cheeky, but I think this pro-bun hugger movement may have some legs, after all!

I'm a dude, and I find the tight spandex "boy shorts" more sexually appealing than bun huggers, even though they cover more skin. I've always thought bun huggers look a little ridiculous.

Wowy kapowy, there are a LOT of posters who seem fired up about what their little preciouses and whether their asses are out there. Guess what parents? Nobody cares what you think about bun huggers, and the people who care the least are your kids.

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.

I agree, "there's no good reason young girls need to wear bun huggers"; however, I disagree with your "childhood sexualization" comment. I think 99% of high school girls aren't trying to be sexy by wearing buns and 99% of the people watching them aren't thinking of sex. When I was coaching, the JV girls wore shorts for couple of years and then spandex. The varsity girls had a choice of buns or spandex, most of them choose buns. We had a traveling team and all of them wore buns, or a buns one piece, which was their choice. I don't think most coaches care what they wore other than all of them looking the same. From my experience, once girls wore buns, they never went back. I think most girls, especially the serious athletes want to look like the athletes they look up to. Btw, I never got directly into the uniform debate, except when school funds were involved. However, when we traveled, I stressed everyone look the same whatever we wore. I am not for or against buns, and I don't think most coaches care either; let the kids decide.

TrackCoach wrote:From my experience, once girls wore buns, they never went back.

+1. I hated the idea of wearing them, as I felt nervous about the level of exposure and whether people would think I saw myself as an elite athlete without the performance to back it up. Once I tried them, no way would I go back.

The only way girls can overcome this initial reluctance is for the briefs to be mandatory and there to be no shorts option available.

FightFor15 wrote:

http://citiusmag.com/ban-the-cross-country-uniform-bun-debate/

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

Excellent response from Bush.

NO

adk22 wrote:

I'm a dude, and I find the tight spandex "boy shorts" more sexually appealing than bun huggers, even though they cover more skin. I've always thought bun huggers look a little ridiculous.

I feel this way too. I find "boy shorts" actually way hotter than the the bun huggers. I have thought about why this is, and I think it's (1) the gap is more distinguishable in the boy-shorts, and (2) the rump is better contoured by the shorts.

I don't understand why people are sexualizing them. They're running cross country. They're sweaty, smelly, perspirating, farting, and covered in grass or mud.

iamnothing wrote:

adk22 wrote:

I'm a dude, and I find the tight spandex "boy shorts" more sexually appealing than bun huggers, even though they cover more skin. I've always thought bun huggers look a little ridiculous.

I feel this way too. I find "boy shorts" actually way hotter than the the bun huggers. I have thought about why this is, and I think it's (1) the gap is more distinguishable in the boy-shorts, and (2) the rump is better contoured by the shorts.

Guess what? We don't choose our uniforms to turn you on. In fact I'd rather wear something that doesn't. This afternoon I was going to wear shorts on a practise run. It'll be buns instead, just for you...