Oh FFS another brand captured

Thank you.

well. They are not ‘all’ about female empowerment at all, are they? Rather dishonest, in that case.

@Helleofabore their website reads:

Lemonade Dolls is the UK underwear subscription brand all about female empowerment…

I mean they are horrid, uncomfortable looking pants, but if men wish to buy them then I can't get that worked up about it.

Why shouldn't men also wear scratchy looking mesh pants if that is their bag?

Fair enough as it's a separate collection. Not sure they look like they fit that well though 😅

I’m with you, OP. I support women’s enterprises when I can. If anyone makes a point of providing a service for women, but I find out they had their fingers crossed behind their back, or have changed to include men, that puts me off.

men should be allowed to chose underwear to make them feel pretty

They are not being marketed at men who want to feel (or look) pretty. Not to effeminate gay men, or effeminate straight men for that matter. Fashion being fashion, some of my (neither effeminate nor gay) ex-DPs wore pants like those back in the 1970s/80s (but less saggy fitting) So it's marketing them as "trans" that's weird. Or sad - that just wanting to wear men's pants in nice colours makes you "trans". Those pants don't look like fetish wear to me, unless the world has become a lot more restrictive while I wasn't looking.

But what really gets up my nose is that it's so fucking coy. They could sell pretty clothes to men, or plain clothes to women. They could openly market to feminine men or feminized men, or to masculine or masculinized women, to people who want to look pretty or sexy or outre in their undies, or to people who don't give a flying fuck as long as their undies fit and are comfy. If they are really aiming at "trans" people they could make it very clear if they're selling frilly knickers with extra space for your schlong, or boxer-style shorts for women with or without codpiece padding.

Instead their "trans" label hides it all under a layer of po-faced dishonesty. Like sticking frills on piano legs.

Those drawers are a bit Austin Powers.

Gross. Aye Gee Pee ain't no selling poit for me

Of course they are, they’re just not what the company chooses to use to sell their products - presumably because their market research tells them that’s what sells their fizzy pop and because they’re using real people and not fictional ones in red suits for 11 months of the year. Direct your ire at The Coca Cola Company who decide their marketing strategy - which has nothing to do with me.

Well sure because we always want to lump us fatties in the same category as men using underwear to wank in 🙄

Fat people of course could never possibly be beautiful...

Meanwhile, during the rest of the year they sell their product by featuring actual real people who are slim and beautiful…

I mean historically coca cola have spent years putting an obese man on their adverts every December given the links between Santa and coca cola in their advertising...

There's a difference between acknowledging who some of your customers are and actively making them the face of your product.

Coca-Cola for instance don't show obese people drinking their product.

If I ran a women's underwear firm the last thing I'd do would be to promote male cross-dressers (who use the underwear as a masturbatory aid) wearing the product.

I wouldn't know either way. Do you think Mumsnet messages people to say "oh btw so and so just contacted us to attempt to have your posts deleted"? How on Earth am I supposed to know if you have or not exactly?

I imagine the vast majority of posters on here are women so that pretty much lends itself to the possibility that occasionally women will disagree with other women on here. I'm not male and have no interest in MRA activity so why would I be active on their forums. That was a rather pitiful reach.

You wanna provide an example of how I, or anyone else for that matter, bullied OP?

Exhibitionism 🤣🤣🤣
Never change Mumsnet.

Fetishism (autogenyphilia - sorry can't spell it) may account for a percentage of sales but ultimately men should be allowed to chose underwear to make them feel pretty just like women can if that's what they like. And they shouldn't have to be secretive about it, any more than I need to be secretive about wearing a pair of trousers (something that was once considered extremely subversive and shameful in women).

Clearly nobody is silencing you.

Nah you're just trying to which is completely fine apparently 🙄

This idea that you should only respond to a post if you're in agreement and prepared to champion it is not how online forums like this work.

Technically this underwear isn't being marketed at men, it's marketed at anyone under the "trans" umbrella.

People who act like "I don't see anything bad about it" clearly know what is going on.

We know that cross-dressers exist, and have always existed (these are men who get aroused by cross-dressing). Many of these brands know this and have sold discreetly to these men before. What has changed is it moving away from being discreet and secretive to actively promoting it, with a lot of men posting photos of themselves in it on these companies social media sites.

There's a fetish around candle wax? Imagine if a candle maker started posted and advertising their products to be used around sexual fetishes. It's rather offputting.

It's the exhibitionism of it that's the problem.

Clearly nobody is silencing you.

Coming onto a feminist board just to be unpleasant about the women there is shitty behaviour towards those women, but you do you.

All I know is that if this brand honestly think these pants look good - on men or women - I'll not bother looking at anything else they sell. They are absolutely the worst pants I have ever seen.

"I do get sick of people saying women are stupid or overreacting when they express disappointment when something they previously liked for whatever reason changes direction." @PriOn1

I don't have to applaud or validate every opinion a woman has in the same way that I don't have to with men. Being a woman is not a get-out-of-criticism free card when you come to a public forum and post something controversial.

I, and all the other posters you're referring to, are entitled to our opinion that OPs opinion is laughable, precious etc

Silencing a group of women you don't agree with in order to defend a group of women you do agree with isn't the feminist move you think it is.

I'm sorry, you're offended by the idea of men wearing underwear?

I can't keep up with the nonsense spouted here sometimes.

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

I don't think the model in the picture is supposed to be a trans woman. That's just a regular man wearing a particular style of underpants clearly designed to be worn by a biological male.

Of course if the company's mission statement is "by women, for women", they might want to rethink their branding if they are planning to branch out into selling men's underwear.

Some women are disappointed with the direction a brand they liked has taken and suddenly they are “precious”, have no real problems, are being “laughable”, are saying “trans people shouldn’t exist” and all kinds of hyperbolic claims.

@Helleofabore has explained it well so I’m not going to add anything, but I do get sick of people saying women are stupid or overreacting when they express disappointment when something they previously liked for whatever reason changes direction. If you don’t care, then that’s fine. Personally I don’t care as I wasn’t even aware of the brand before, but I can understand why people would be. And yes, it’s the way the world is, but we don’t have to like it and we can choose to take whatever actions we want to demonstrate that.