Am I being prudish, or do I have a point?

[AmIJustAPrude]

NC for this.

I've just sent the following email to a company I ordered underwear from:

I've just received my order confirmation and was quite shocked by the accompanying image. I don't want to screenshot it to resend, so hopefully you can work out the image I mean: it is of two women/girls lying on their fronts outside wearing black pants.

The woman (I hope) or girl on the left is very thin, which immediately made me assume she was a teenager. One of her breasts is clearly visible.

I'm not prudish about breasts at all, but it made me extremely uncomfortable to receive an image of what appears to be an almost-naked teenage girl. Given you also sell bras, it seems totally unnecessary for her to be completely topless.

I recommend you review the images you send out to your customers, as this has put me off using your company again.

As I say, I don't have an issue with breasts- I've breastfed in public many a time. It was mainly the fact that, based on her body shape, the woman/girl in the photo looks very young (post-pubescent, but pre-adult) and the exposed breast was completely unnecessary.

So what do you think: did I overreact?

is this a good time to point out i'm 43, fat, and wearing rainbow patterned bra and pants from Molke?

Please re-read the OP.

Oh god I am tempted!

Mate. Get a grip. That photo is nothing worth getting your knickers in a twist (see what I did there!) about at all.

And I'm a teacher... have I missed a memo about the General Teaching Council being able to see our camera rolls now?

They were unpleasant, fat and had issues with ONLY the slimmer women in the office. Maybe they were SLIMphobic.

ooh now with the picture cut out the way it is, it does look like a child. lying next to an older woman.

God that’s weird, it really doesn’t.

No, it really doesn't.

I’ve been having an upsetting morning and your post, diagram and responses have made me laugh through my tears. Thank you! 😂😂😊😊

I agree not acceptable OP.

No, that wasn't the context. The context was the OP was concerned she would have a screenshot of what she believed was an underage girl's breast on her phone. Which if she was being accused of abuse by a teenage girl would of course be a bad thing for the police to then find on her phone. (Of course we now know its a completely fine picture of a woman's elbow, but the OP didn't realise that when she was refusing to screenshot the picture).

@TheWeeKelpie

she doesn’t though!

it does to me. let's agree to disagree. is it a gold or white dress?

either way, it's best to have pictures which are obviously not underage kids in underwear. so no one can make that mistake. with the face, it's a lot more obvious.

congratulations for spectacularly missing the point the poster is literally making.

The double-standards are gold.

Why would a teenage student accuse the OP of abuse?

Secondly, it's a picture from an email order confirmation.

I asked, not assumed, because only a MAN would have concerns about saving marketing material for high-street women's underwear on his phone.

A woman, at worst, would be accused of doing too much shopping

YAnbu. She looks half the height of the other model so she might be child height which makes me uncomfortable as it's normalising something that doesn't fit right. You can be 7 stone, 18 and 5,4 but it's not likely she is over 5 foot. It's not a snag image of a size 6 next to a size 32.

But more over, do you get them sending dick pics on the boxers? Bit of ball sack peeping out? Like fuck would they.

How can you appreciate the pants without seeing her nappies? Even though that image is not selling ant kind of top? I don't need to see nappies to buy a bra but men do. Sex sells.

OP

are you aware your (first) name is disclosed

you may want that deleted

Found photo on their website and didn't mean to post it.

Doesn't bother me. It's an underwear company.

I agree with you. I will never buy from Lemonade Dolls again because one of their adverts was a man with a large obvious Penistone in one of their underwear sets.

And why do so many adverts for underwear show women about to put their hands down their pants?

'normalising something that doesn't fit right'

Please explain further.

So .. a slimmer woman next to a bigger woman can't be in the same advertising campaign?

So having fat people advertise tights is a “fetish”. Nah, it’s just showing body diversity. Also, why shouldn’t men wear tights if they want to - again, not a fetish.

god forbid a company that sells lingerie to plus sized women have photos of plus sized women wearing lingerie in their adverts.

I've boycotted a couple of manufacturers who were using transwomen for women's clothes. One was for period pants.

Is inclusivity fetish now??