In high school I never even thought about it either way, we were always too tired to care what they wore. I think there has to be something else going on in this case like the shirtless boys are being obnoxious and flinging their sweat on the girls as they run by.
I just don’t think it should be a big deal to just wear a shirt. The girls should wear shirts too. Even if it’s stupid; the school said wear a shirt so wear a shirt. They have to wear shirts to compete anyway so they might as well get used to it.
What amount of covering is sufficient for their “junk”? If it’s covered in fabric, but you can still see some kind of bulge is it still inapproriate? Or should the covering be baggy enough so one can’t even tell if he even has external genitalia by looking at him? Should the same rule apply to females (ie they can’t wear shirts tight enough for anyone to tell if they even have breasts or they can’t wear shorts/bathing suits/ leotrads that show their lack of a bulge)?
I think nudity is for special times and to share with special people.
I don’t think it’s good that my high school son has seen every girl in school’s butt crack, cleavage, midriff and upper pubic area.
I don’t think it’s good that he’s seen most of the cross country team girls nipples in HD through their sweaty, thin sport bras (way more revealing than most bikini tops).
I think topless men can be sexy as hell and we shouldn’t all get to see where their stomach hair turns into pubic hair and some of those shorts ride really low.
I think it robs young people of a certain amount of excitement in their romantic lives if they’ve already seen everything before they even go on a date.
I think men,* in close proximity to women who are not in their families*, should wear a shirt unless they’re at the beach or pool.
I think women should wear shirts other than bras,* in close proximity to men not in their families*, unless they are at the beach or pool.
If that makes me a prude, so be it.
I’m OK with tight tops, a little cleavage, a suggestion of sexy whatever, but things have gone too far for me. Everything’s just all out there all the time.
No, it’s not “so be it,” because prudes like you are trying to impose your personal preferences on everyone else. Let people choose as individuals what they want to wear or not. The prudes can just deal with it.
Oh, that’s just silly. Boys running in shirts are no more at risk for heatstroke than the girls who have been running in shirts for decades.
And if running in a shirt is so horribly dangerous, letting guys go without while the girls can’t means the girls are being treated differently and worse than the boys. Which is, of course, sex discrimination and a lawsuit waiting to happen.
If it was just the topless thing, it would be silly. But I have no reason to doubt the school when they say it was “the regrettable outcome of an ongoing discussion.”
My paw always told me to wear a raincoat whenevers I was around wymen folk. He said it would prevent many a problem…guess he was a tinkin proper there…but that durn thing sure does get to a being a tad hot in the summer time…
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the policy of prohibiting male athletes from taking their shirts off. But how does that policy justify firing Coach Davis?
According to the article, he had told the students about the policy and consequences. Then one of the students took his shirt off during a run. And the athletic director came over and fired Davis on the spot.
Anyone else not seeing the connection? If the staff is somehow liable when a student breaks a rule, why wasn’t Karl Fogel fired as well? He’s the athletic director - surely he was as responsible for a student breaking the rules as the coach was.
Depends on what said guys looked like shirtless. (Even if they WERE athletes!)
As for the policy, completely stupid, and the girl who complained – well, that depends on WHY she was uncomfortable. It sounds pretty stupid, and she very well may be a prude, but who knows?
(Even if they WERE athletes!)