C'mon, Emma! More class!

You are dumb. Try to use common sense as to why the OP posted what he did.

You must be under 18

Almost everyone on here is missing OP’s point. It’s not about the shorts being revealing- it’s the type of shorts. She is representing a company, not having a day at the beach. Athletic type shorts of equal length would have been 100x more appropriate for the occasion.

OK, let's settle it. Next year, everyone goes nude, to avoid all controversy.

It's California, after all, where skin is a little better tolerated than in OP's brain.

It's San Diego weather, after all.

Nude Balance will sponsor it.

NXN will still be the same, because of the weather Up North being what it is.

Cold Hard Truth wrote:

Like it or not this is not a good image for a woman to be putting out there if she ever wants to work in the sport later on (i.e. not running-say wants to be a journalist) People can say it's appropriate/inappropriate, regardless it will harm her future career.

There is no possible way that this event and her wearing shorts will ever have any impact whatsoever on her future career.

So, either you were joking or you are clueless beyond belief.

Threads like these are why Letsrun is regarded with eye-rolls and disgust by a large majority of the running community.

Harambe wrote:

Threads like these are why Letsrun is regarded with eye-rolls and disgust by a large majority of the running community.

But would they be the Moral Majority?

A few things. I got a text "How is this superhot" and I'm a bit baffled (technically it's super hot because a bunch of different people are reading it) but not a lot is going on in the running world. And Emma is super popular and obviously whether people like it or not, what people wear and in particular women wear is something people are interested in.

It used to think threads discussing how someone looks were totally sexist but I don't think so anymore. Emma's posed in ESPN the body magazine, has taken photos wearing very little and posted them on Instagram, so people are going to talk about how she looks. Society currently is going to do this more for women than men. Call that reality, or call it sexist, but they also do it for men but to a lesser extent.

If all you do is evaluate someone on their looks that's sexist. But evaluating someone on their looks isn't inherently sexist.

However, what they're doing here is discussing whether what she was wearing was appropriate for the venue. I had to laugh yesterday when after reading this thread I went to church and a woman wearing cutoff jean shorts served me communion. Was that appropriate for the venue? I don't have a problem with people discussing that so I'm letting the thread stay.

I totally disagree with the first part. She has a right to wear whatever she wants, but she's a very public figure, and part of the $ she makes is how she presents herself and if she can market products that people wear to look good and perform well. So people can totally comment on it. As a private forum we don't have to allow it but I'm fine with the discussion going on. If it gets more of control I'd stop it or even if Emma emailed saying she was uncomfortable I might stop it, but as is, people can discuss whether she should have worn daisy dukes at the finish of Foot Lockers.

Of course they don't have the power to dictate how she dresses. But they can comment on it. And I had to chuckle when the poster above says people can't comment on what Emma wears he then turns to the looks of the posters' wives to insult them. I think it's more offensive for someone to assume everyone who disagrees with you is a redneck male with an ugly wife than to comment on what Emma wore at Foot Lockers.

Having said that, I would like the discussion to be civil. We've banned the word cuc* from LetsRun and would like people to keep reporting posts they find offensive. Feel free to email me directly

You assessment of etiquette is incorrect. This is not a formal occasion, and I doubt you would raise the same issue if a male athlete came attired in the same attire.

If you have to ask "would it be weird to wear jean shorts to the footlockers" then yes it's inappropriate. (Which I'm sure she did ask that question). However, this fashion faux pas is easily overlooked when you look like she does.

It's honestly funny that you guys are over here acting like this is a real business meeting. I highly doubt she did not consult with the NB executives on attire before she arrived.

What was she supposed to do, show up in a suit and tie? Sisson is wearing a sweatsuit out there, is she dressed unprofessionally? That's fine, it was also fairly warm out there too. Was it a problem that Emma was trying to relate to the kids at the event? Isn't that part of marketability and branding, making yourself relatable to the customer?

Emma is a World Championship Gold Medallist, it was not a privilege for her to be invited, it was a privilege to Footlocker/NB that she showed up.

Was wondering how in the world this thread hasn't been deleted and then I remembered the people who run this website get to decide the morality for all on its board.

You don't need to respond to each individual response with a lengthy explanation. Whether you like it or not it's wrong for a bunch of men to get together on a thread to comment on how a woman looks. Period.

It is astonishing that you do not understand this and then facilitate this discussion further on your boards.

It's wrong to comment on a public figure now?

The OP demeaning Emma's "class" is his objection to how she is representing her company and not how she is representing herself to the public? C'mon, man! To add to this, the "shorts are too revealing" argument is ridiculous. Her shorts are less revealing than the entire girls H.S. field. Whether what she's wearing is inappropriate from NB perspective is between her and them, but why should I give a damn or personally think her to have poor class if she didn't wear what NB expected?

Those that think that this thread has anything to do with sex hasn't followed the ball very well. Those that want this thread deleted because it is talking about a woman's attractivene is also missing the point.

This thread is about how a branded athlete should represent themselves and whether or not that should effect how we view this athlete or the brand.

If 15% of the people think she was not dressed properly then they are right. There is no company that is willing to turn off 15% of their potential customers. This is not a majority wins argument. It's merchandising.

Her shorts made no difference to me but that is not the point.

Dr. Ruth W wrote:

Those that think that this thread has anything to do with sex hasn't followed the ball very well. Those that want this thread deleted because it is talking about a woman's attractivene is also missing the point.

This thread is about how a branded athlete should represent themselves and whether or not that should effect how we view this athlete or the brand.

If 15% of the people think she was not dressed properly then they are right. There is no company that is willing to turn off 15% of their potential customers. This is not a majority wins argument. It's merchandising.

Her shorts made no difference to me but that is not the point.

+1

but you're preaching to 14-18 year old boys who have posted almost all of the 7-8 pages

wild cattie wrote:

Dr. Ruth W wrote:

Those that think that this thread has anything to do with sex hasn't followed the ball very well. Those that want this thread deleted because it is talking about a woman's attractivene is also missing the point.

This thread is about how a branded athlete should represent themselves and whether or not that should effect how we view this athlete or the brand.

If 15% of the people think she was not dressed properly then they are right. There is no company that is willing to turn off 15% of their potential customers. This is not a majority wins argument. It's merchandising.

Her shorts made no difference to me but that is not the point.

+1

but you're preaching to 14-18 year old boys who have posted almost all of the 7-8 pages

Exactly. For every potential NB customer that was turned off, at least ten were probably turned on.

Just wow... wrote:

wild cattie wrote:

+1

but you're preaching to 14-18 year old boys who have posted almost all of the 7-8 pages

Exactly. For every potential NB customer that was turned off, at least ten were probably turned on.

AMEN

RejectRunner wrote:

Just wow... wrote:

Exactly. For every potential NB customer that was turned off, at least ten were probably turned on.

AMEN

14-18 year old boys have no $$$, so he wins?