The semiannual Zahm Hall “Bun Run” is scheduled for midnight tonight at the LaFortune Student Center, and it will reportedly go forward as planned despite a threatened police crackdown. “If the police do follow through with attempting to apprehend the naked perpetrators, it could be quite a spectacle, and one hell of a final Bun Run,” writes my source in Zahm.
The Bun Run is a longstanding Notre Dame tradition. On the Sunday night before the start of undergrad finals, a bunch of male students get naked — often covering their faces with bags or masks, and sometimes wearing creative yet revealing costumes (nudity! NSFW!) — and streak through a building on campus where many of their schoolmates are busily cramming for exams. (Of course, many students, especially female students, show up specifically to watch the Bun Run.)
As I understand it, there are currently two active Bun Runs: the Zahm Hall Bun Run at LaFortune (which has its own Facebook group) and the Alumni Hall Bun Run at Hesburgh Library. Here’s a YouTube video of a previous semester’s Bun Run at Hesburgh. Again, warning: nudity! (obviously)
Also, as noted in an earlier post, here are some photos of a previous LaFortune Bun Run: 1, 2, 3. (Again, nudity! Duh!) And here’s Kristin’s eyewitness report of the event last spring.
From what I’ve been told, campus authorities have traditionally tolerated these streak shows, focusing their energies on preventing students from blocking the exits rather than on apprehending the streakers themselves.
However, the Internets tell of past crackdowns (apparently Keenan Hall did a Bun Run throughout the 1980s and 1990s until a crackdown in the late ’90s), and it appears another one is coming. A letter to the Observer last week reported that Zahm residents were warned on April 29 that “members of Notre Dame Security and Police (NDSP) are going to start apprehending individuals who are seen partaking” in the Bun Run.
I’m not certain whether NDSP has similarly threatened the men of Alumni Hall, or even whether an Alumni Hall Bun Run at Hesburgh is scheduled for tonight in the first place. (If you know any details about that, please let me know!) But the men of Zahm Hall are definitely planning a midnight Bun Run at LaFortune, as usual, according to my Zahm source. “From my understanding, NDSP’s threats haven’t altered the time or location,” he writes.
I don’t normally go out of my way to see naked men :) but I’ll make an exception in this case, especially in light of the possible showdown with campus police. I’ll be there, camera and cell phone in hand, to report on what happens. So, stay tuned. (If anyone wants to be a BrendanLoy.com stringer and report on any events as they might happen at Hesburgh, let me know!)
NOTE: This post is substantially modified from the original version, which was broken up into multiple updates, and thus rather disjointed. The original version can be seen after the jump.
* * * * *
Public service announcement: Naked Domers!
If I’m not mistaken, the traditional “Bun Run” — in which a bunch of male Notre Dame students get naked and streak around the LaFortune Student Center — is tonight, at or around midnight. (Undergrad finals start tomorrow.) Just FYI. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about the schedule/location.
UPDATE: Here’s a video of a previous year’s Bun Run, at Hesburgh Library. (My understanding is that there are two separate Bun Runs, one at LaFortune and one at Hesburgh. But I’m not sure.) Warning: nudity! (obviously)
Also, as noted in an earlier post, here are some photos of a previous LaFortune Bun Run: 1, 2, 3. Again, nudity! Duh!
UPDATE 2: Apparently, security plans to crack down (uh, no pun intended, heh) on the Bun Run this year. (Hat tip: Kristin — who, incidentally, blogged an eyewitness report of last spring’s Bun Run.) So, I dunno if it will actually happen, or what.
UPDATE 3: Here’s a possible explanation of the Hesburgh/LaFortune confusion, though I can’t vouch for its accuracy: “I thought it was Alumni Hall that did the library streak? The Zahm Bun Run occurred on North Quad and straight through LaFortune.”
UPDATE 4: This Facebook group confirms that the Zahm Bun Run occurs on “1st Floor La Fortune, the Sunday before final exams,” in the “evening,” and that a Bun Run is scheduled for May 6, 2007 (i.e., tonight). However, it hasn’t been updated in quite a while, so it doesn’t help answer the question of whether NDSP’s threats will actually stop this semester’s Bun Run from occurring.
UPDATE 5: I have confirmation from a source in Zahm Hall that the dorm’s Bun Run will go forward tonight at midnight at LaFortune. “From my understanding, NDSP’s threats haven’t altered the time or location,” he writes. “If the police do follow through with attempting to apprehend the naked perpetrators, it could be quite a spectacle, and one hell of a final bun run.”
Dunno whether there will be a simultaneous Alumni Hall Bun Run at Hesburgh, or what.
P.S. Speaking of finals, I’ve replaced the graduation countdown clock at the top of the page with a countdown to 12:00 noon on Friday, when my last exam (ConLaw II) gets out. I figure that’s the more immediately pertinent countdown. I’ll put the graduation clock back up there after Friday.
|
Categories: Notre Dame
|
May 6th, 2007 at 12:56:21 pm
Manchester United are champions of the English Premier League.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:00:49 pm
Did they win the title Naked?
May 6th, 2007 at 1:01:22 pm
ps ~ sillyBrits :)
May 6th, 2007 at 1:16:02 pm
There was a letter in the opinion section of the Observer last week about this. Apparently, security is cracking down on the Bun Run, and anybody who participates (and gets caught) will get in trouble. The letter was pro-Bun Run and told the boys to “run fast”. :)
May 6th, 2007 at 2:23:41 pm
Ever since I witnessed this crap in the La Fun starbucks studying in 2003, my unfulfilled dream at NDLS was to clock at least one of these f*s. Seeing one of these worthless undergrads bleeding out there mouth, confused and angry, as their friends continue on without them, would have been truly a lifelong treasured memory.
For some reason, I don’t really like streaking (if you couldn’t tell). But then, most male homoerotic group behavior I’m not a big fan of.
May 6th, 2007 at 3:47:39 pm
Seriously 4-7? Why don’t you worry a little bit less about nudity and a little bit more about your desire to punch people in the face for no good reason. Your irrational homophobia is disgusting.
May 6th, 2007 at 3:49:16 pm
I think they should all cover themselves in Crisco so the NDSP guys can’t grab them.
May 6th, 2007 at 3:56:45 pm
4-7 needs to relax…
i’m with anon… what’s with the violent tendencies?
May 6th, 2007 at 4:03:36 pm
its a shame that the ndsp doesnt have better things to do than go after college kids being a little wild.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:07:15 pm
Well, I DO worry about that too ;)
It’s not homophobia to have a personal dislike of male homoerotic behavior. I am sorry I don’t find it as appetizing as many of your towel-flicking types do. If gays want to run down the street naked together, that almost makes visual sense. I am just pointing out the oddity that certain sections of men in Western society (which, legitimate or no, has a taboo that ties nudity with sexuality) enjoy doing this kind of thing together.
The fact that you assume “homophobia” shows the limited depth of your intellect.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:09:41 pm
I think the people who get all up in arms about the Vagina Monologues should expend a least a little bit of energy denouncing the Bun Run. If women’s bodies are so sacred that we’re not supposed to talk about them in a “degrading” way, then how come men running around naked is not also “degrading” to themselves?
Have you ever heard men talk about how women should dress modestly to help keep the men from having lustful thoughts? Can you imagine the outrage if a women’s hall decided to streak through LaFortune? People would be crying Bloody Murder! I just don’t get why guys get a free pass on this stuff.
Personally, I think the idea of the Bun Run is hilarious. I would just like to hear some of the people who oppose the Vagina Monologues and women dressing “inappropriately” to apply the same standards to men. Oh that’s right, this is Notre Dame, Home of the Double Standard!
(I might be thinking of a couple of law student assistant rector brothers who are vehemently anti-Vagina Monologues. Come on, buddies, where’s your outrage at the Bun Run?)
May 6th, 2007 at 4:13:01 pm
And, condone it as boisterous behavior all you like, this kind of stuff is antithetical to the dignity Notre Dame men should reflect. People who excuse this stuff are indifferent idiots, if you ask me (and whether you do or not, you know how much I care). These are the same type of people who, if a beer or a butt slap was on the line, would make a below-the-belt solicitous hand geasture to the Virgin Mary statute atop the dome. That’s why I oppose them - not because they are “acting gay”, but because they’re acting epicurean (actually, epicurean sounds too refined). They’re acting like the apes so many men grow below to notwithstanding fancy degrees. Such inferior breeds should be taken out of our social stock.
And if you think you’re so superior in your tolerance, think of the same worthless men of Zahm deciding to schedule their streak during your sister’s wedding. Screw them wherever they eat their green eggs and ham.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:17:32 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You’re entitled to your opinion, 4-7, and I won’t slam you for it, even if it seems prudish to some. But the “sister’s wedding” thing is completely absurd. Surely you can acknowledge that, when judging the merits of someone’s behavior, CONTEXT MATTERS. Objectively, streaking during someone’s wedding would be way, way, way, way more inappropriate and condemnible than streaking while people are studying for exams. Whatever point you thought you were trying to make there, you failed. Specifically, just because one is “tolerant” of the LaFortune Bun Run does NOT mean one must therefore be “tolerant” of a Wedding Bun Run, or else be inconsistent/hypocritical. That’s a ridicuous, bullshit argument, and you know it.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:17:42 pm
maybe you should make a “guys, ass, and sex” category.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:24:51 pm
Heh. Yeah, I think not.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:26:29 pm
I don’t know, Brendan, but I read 4-7 the other way: if, as I would hope we all agree, a Wedding Bun Run is inappropriate, what makes a LaFortune or Hesburgh Bun Run any more appropriate (less inappropriate)? I’m not sure I see a significant difference. Either way, it’s ridiculously sophomoric, uncivilized behavior that imposes costs on others gathered at the site in question for completely unrelated purposes that are highly important to them, intentionally and unreasonably interfering with the normal and expected sequence of events. The only real distinction is that a wedding is a once-in-a-lifetime event, whereas exams come along a little more frequently. But for plenty, getting some serious studying in for a big and important exam is right up there with major life events; I don’t see why such people should have to “tolerate” a bunch of idiots running naked through the library while they’re trying to prepare.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:29:29 pm
Does anyone else find it ironic that 4-7 is talking about human dignity and punching people in the face in the same comment thread?
Speaking of 4-7, isn’t it 1 John 4:7 that says:
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.
Apparently I missed the part about “clock(ing) at least one of the f*s…and seeing the worthless undergrads bleeding out of there (sic) mouth”
May 6th, 2007 at 4:29:59 pm
Um, the distinction speaks for itself. No offense, Brian, but this is a case of overintellectualizing the instinctively obvious. Only by overthinking the issue is it even remotely possible to contend that the two things are equivalent. I say again, ridiculous.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:33:29 pm
P.S. Moreover, by comparing the “once-in-a-lifetime event” of a wedding to the “more frequent” event of “exams,” you’re not even making the right comparison. They aren’t streaking DURING EXAMS. They’re streaking during a brief portion of the multi-day study period before exams. The proper analogy would be an Exam Bun Run vs. a Wedding Bun Run (still not even close, but at least your analysis would apply), or the LaFortune/Hesburgh Bun Run vs. a Bun Run during a brief portion of a last-minute wedding-planning session.
And, um, again, in all cases, it’s instinctively completely obvious that none of those scenarios is remotely close to the inappropriateness of the Wedding Bun Run (assuming of course that the bride & groom aren’t in on it somehow).
May 6th, 2007 at 4:35:47 pm
Brian,
Everyone knows about the Bun Run, and I guarantee you, no one who is on the 2nd floor of Hesburgh or in LaFortune at midnight the Sunday night before finals start is there to study. The 2nd floor of Hesburgh and LaFortune are notorious for being social places during study days and finals. They are the places to go if you want to “study” and not get any work done. The Bun Runs aren’t interrupting anyone.
And 3L, I did actually witness a couple girls running with the Zahm guys my sophomore year. They were wearing shorts, but they were topless. And one of the poor girls slipped and fell as they were running out of LaFortune and sprained her ankle. I did hear one guy yell out as they went by, “Wow! That guy has nice boobs!”
May 6th, 2007 at 4:43:16 pm
Brian is way off base. A wedding is a one-time event of incredible importance to the participants (as he well knows) and the whole event could be “ruined” by a set of streakers. A student’s studying might be interrupted for a few minutes, but that doesn’t ruin anything. The funny moment might even be a nice break during a very serious time (although I can see why some would not appreciate it). To compare the two streaking events is ridiculous and nonsensical.
I’m embarrassed that 4-7 is a ND student. Punching people in the mouth and savoring it as a lifetime memory? Is that not antithetical to the dignity Notre Dame men should reflect? How can you call out these streakers while dreaming of making one bleed? It’s outrageous.
And since when are men in Western society the only men who engage in this type of “homoerotic” behavior?
May 6th, 2007 at 4:44:36 pm
What Anonymous said.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:47:56 pm
“If gays want to run down the street naked together, that almost makes visual sense.”
What????? How does that make sense any more than the Bun Run? If you are offended by males running nude, then you should be equally offended whether they are straight or gay. It wouldn’t make any more sense for you to run around naked in public with a woman (I assume, based on your comments, that you are male). This statement (along with calling gay men “gays”) is offensive.
” I am just pointing out the oddity that certain sections of men in Western society (which, legitimate or no, has a taboo that ties nudity with sexuality) enjoy doing this kind of thing together.”
Actually, you were just pointing out that you wanted to punch people in the face and make them bleed. Slightly different.
“It’s not homophobic to have a personal dislike of male homoerotic behavior. …The fact that you assume “homophobia” shows the limited depth of your intellect.”
This is a little more than a personal dislike when you actually contemplate violence. Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures (Wikipedia). I would say that you are just a little bit hostile toward homosexual behavior. Just because they are straight guys doing something that you think is homoerotic doesn’t make your reaction any less homophobic.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:49:06 pm
IMHO, 4-7 is up for a psych evaluation. That kind of talk is more horrifying than a bunch of private organs flopping freely around a library.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:53:15 pm
What uscroger said (OMG, did I just agree with a Trojan? :) 4-7’s comments (and others like his) are an embarrassment to Notre Dame.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:54:05 pm
While I agree that 4-7’s initial violent comment, if intended seriously and literally (or even close to literally), is disgusting, I just want to take issue with one thing Anon @ 4:47 said: “This statement (along with calling gay men ‘gays’) is offensive.” Huh? How is it offensive to call gay men “gays”? Did I miss that memo? Fags = offensive. Queers = offensive. Gays = offensive?? Since when?
May 6th, 2007 at 4:57:19 pm
I’m sure 4-7 will try to back down from his punching comment (or at least claim that he was joking), but the desire to punch someone in the face and make them bleed (and even take PLEASURE in watching them bleed) is disgusting and abhorrent. That is the real shame on ND in this post.
ND dignity? 4-7 has shown that he lacks it.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:58:03 pm
Hmmm . . . I see a lot of claims that my comparison is “ridiculous” and “non-sensical” and that it’s “instinctively completely obvious” that they are not remotely analogous, but they all seem to be accompanied by strained attempts to distinguish the two events being disturbed, when my point was more that the behavior in question is sophomoric, idiotic and inappropriate in almost any context (though I can see how I inartfully expressed my point and encouraged the focus on the events rather than the behavior). Specifically, my point was that I didn’t read 4-7 to say that those who tolerate Bun Run but not Wedding run should tolerate Wedding Run too, but the fact that they don’t tolerate it for Wedding Run means they ought not tolerate Bun Run either.
I’ll accept Lisa’s point that nobody’s really being distracted from trying to study because they know in advance and it’s not the “studying” part of the library anyway, but I still don’t see why it’s anymore okay to engage in such behavior at a library or a student union building than anywhere else that civilization exists. Which is to say, rather than “appropriate” and “inappropriate,” I see this as “inappropriate” and “wildly inappropriate.” Like 4-7, I’d draw the line between not running and Running, rather than between Library Running and Wedding Running. (Although unlike 4-7, I harbor no violent instincts toward runners . . . just pity and scorn.)
May 6th, 2007 at 5:05:02 pm
But Brian, correct me if I’m wrong here. You’re married with kids. Would have felt differently about the tradition at 19?
Maybe not, but I think that expecting guys that age to act sophmoric is appropriate.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:05:27 pm
I see this as “inappropriate” and “wildly inappropriate.”
Yes, but then surely you can understand how someone who sees things differently than you might redefine “inappropriate” as “all in good fun” while still regarding “wildly inappropriate” as out-of-bounds. In short, no matter how you try to characterize 4-7’s comment, it just doesn’t follow. You say “the fact that they don’t tolerate it for Wedding Run means they ought not tolerate Bun Run either.” That’s just not true. It doesn’t follow logically. Point A does not lead necessarily to Point B. It’s perfectly possible to come up with a justification for tolerating it at LaFortune but not at someone’s wedding. In fact, it’s extremely easy. Therefore, 4-7 never should have brought up the “wedding” analogy at all, and you never should have thrown the weight of your normally-logical commentary behind it. You (and he) should have stuck to arguing that “the behavior in question is sophomoric, idiotic and inappropriate in almost any context.” That’s a perfectly valid viewpoint. But when you’re trying to argue against those who have a contrary viewpoint — namely, that “sophomoric, idiotic and inappropriate” behavior is, in some contexts, all in good fun and thus not worthy of being condemned — it makes absolutely no sense to bring up the wedding analogy, and suggest that because people are anti-Wedding-Bun-Run, they must therefore also be anti-LaFortune-Bun-Run.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:08:03 pm
Brendan, FWIW in defense of the above comment, I have never personally heard anyone use the description “gays” in a neutral or positive statement. In my experience, people who use it are generally expressing some type of judgment. Whether or not it is technically offensive, I am not sure. But I have never heard it used in a way that wasn’t. I, for one, would never use the term and I have never heard any of my gay friends use it either. That being said, as you pointed out, there are much worse things people can say.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:10:26 pm
As much as it pains me to admit it, you may have me there. I guess occasionally the age thing makes a difference, and this may be one such occasion. Although I don’t remember thinking this sort of thing was okay at 19. (That was a long time ago though.)
Mostly I just thought Brendan was too quick to reject the wedding argument. It doesn’t bother or affect me either way if there’s a Bun Run — and certainly I don’t feel any personal slight to the “ND dignity” by either runners or those who want to punch them — but I still tend to see pointless public displays of nudity to be, well, pointless. If you’re going to do it, at least have a love-in or take a stand or protest or something, instead of just running around like an idiot.
Also, given the turn this thread has taken, I should point out that my position on pointless public displays of nudity are not affected by the gender or sexual orientation of those on display. I have equal opportunity scorn and pity for runners of all stripes. :)
May 6th, 2007 at 5:10:50 pm
I’ve heard (or at least read) gay people using the plural “gays.” But I take your point, it is often used in the sense of “those damn gays…” However, I would focus on the content of those statements rather than the term “gays” itself. I don’t think it’s the use of the term “gays” that makes the statements offensive, but rather, the otherwise offensive content.
(Also, off the top of my head… “gays in the military”… that phrase is used all the time, by advocates and opponents alike, no?)
May 6th, 2007 at 5:13:15 pm
Melissa –
Didn’t you just use it when you said “gay friends”? Or is the specific focus on “gays” as a plural noun, as opposed to the word “gay” in and of itself?
Brendan –
I concede. (This time . . . :) )
May 6th, 2007 at 5:13:50 pm
I need to stop taking so long to post.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:16:21 pm
Good point Brendan. I will still stear clear, myself. Partly because I think that using terms like “gays” and “illegals” to refer to people is just strange, to say the least. Although, let’s not open that can of worms….:) Used appropriately, the terms aren’t per se offensive. It’s just that they often aren’t used appropriately.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:20:11 pm
It’s the plural, because “gay” has to be modified with a noun. Using an adjective as a noun is what makes the difference.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:23:05 pm
Got it. And now that I think about it, the grammatical distinction makes sense.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:25:23 pm
OMG. seriously, I was totally in-between word usage (homosexuals or gays) and just picked one - it sounded more colloquial. insanity.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:28:39 pm
4-7, funny that you think we are all insane.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:47:08 pm
Ok. I guess it was a bit over the top, but I hate male group behavior of this type and the fact that it is forced on people who chose to continue living civilized by wearing their clothes makes it worse. It wouldmt be enjoyed if it wasn’t scandalous. It makes me angry, so I use angry language. So I was a little more colorful than “I would wipe that smile off their face”. Sorry.
and the substance of the gay comment was not meant to imply homosexuals are more apt for this kind of conduct. not at all. I was only replying to the proposition that it was somehow inherently homophobic to say the homoerotic nature of this type of play is one reason why I find it offensive. I was saying I would find this behavior would not be as offensive if done by homosexuals as some sort of celebration of their sexuality. Why ? Of course, my desire not to witness the conduct would be the same, but it would not be an instance of what I perceive goes on in the Zahm type streak - group-thinking, group-behaving men trying to get a laugh by scandalizing everyone else with their all-male play. One guy running through La Fun is a lot different than twenty. I’m sorry, it just is. The latter is very caveman to me and it’s a big part of a lot of guys social center, manifesting itself in many negative (and rarely positive) ways.
And Brendan, you are right, context matters. But I consider the sacred grounds of Notre Dame to be part of that context, and I think it’s disparaging of the Blessed Patron (who the Zahmmites have to cross on their trek, clothed or no) to make this run. It’s childish and mobbish at the same time. Is it a big item on my life calendar right now ? No. People can do what they will.
All I meant to say was that I’d like to knock some pride out of the dishonorable nongentleman who make this run. Who do not offer their naked bodies in some celebration of human freedom or human beauty, but in pure scandal. It is the scandal that thrills them, and for that, it is their intent and littleness that incents me.
Anyway, I doubt anyone will understand, it’s stupid that this thread should have 40+ posts on a Sunday. I’m out. Enjoy the revelry.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:53:15 pm
Melissa. I did not call anyone insane. I said it was insanity that my use of the word “gays” touched off a short assembly line of comments. The modern sensitivity to insensitivity does border on an obsessive psychosis.
Homophobic is essentually a non-word now anyway given its overuse as a marginalizing, reductive device. Certainly I don’t want to be called it, but, then what is it other than an attempt to freeze someone with the fear of a stigmatic label.
May 6th, 2007 at 6:06:44 pm
4-7, I appreciate your explanation.
May 6th, 2007 at 6:29:12 pm
4-7 is ‘out’?
May 6th, 2007 at 7:06:27 pm
I concede.
Woohoo! ;)
May 6th, 2007 at 7:38:18 pm
4-7, although apologetic, has evoked and irradiated some of his inner self, thus reflecting some resentment that needs to be addressed for the his own well-being and that of human kind. Even if I hated somene deeply, I would not think of punching them to see them bleed and rejoice from it. to think it would be vicious. To write about it would be ‘revealing.’
May 6th, 2007 at 7:43:18 pm
“…he fact that it is forced on people who chose to continue living civilized by wearing their clothes makes it worse.”
4-7: wearing clothes does not make you, or anyone for that reason, civilized as your previous discourse so magnificently proved. And how would you explain that such tradition is being “forced” on people. I pressume you have the option to attend other school where such tradition of keeping your clothes on warrants your civility and gentrified ways?
May 6th, 2007 at 8:03:09 pm
i bet 4-7 is a lot of fun to be around
May 6th, 2007 at 8:07:47 pm
LOL
May 6th, 2007 at 8:49:36 pm
4-7, although apologetic, has evoked and irradiated some of his inner self, thus reflecting some resentment that needs to be addressed for the his own well-being and that of human kind.
To bring today’s posting activity full circle, I think he created a Horcrux.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:52:12 pm
LOL!
May 7th, 2007 at 10:39:35 am
irradiated is probably the best description of me. ha.