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?

Anyone else go to the website and placed an order?
I did (sale stuff ha ha) may also have stated on the “where did you hear about us” part “other, Mumsnet” lol.
cheers OP.
love bright undies and bras/ clothes/ shoes. After all I am Queen Rainbow

Tagging MN doesn't work, OP. You'd need to report the post with your name and ask them to delete via the form.

Hope you have an elbow-free day! 😊

Thank you for this! I've now done it properly.

So do I!

Yes me too! I chose other and said ‘hilarious mumsnet thread’ 😂

She is a 'real woman'. She just happens to be a slim one. They exist you know.

But the photo concerned wasn't exactly revealing and certainly didn't show any breasts, let alone reproductive organs. And, like many other people on this thread, I don't think the woman looks particularly young - she looks in her 30s to me and definitely not a 'young girl'. The company uses different sized women to model their clothing, more so than many clothing retailers. The woman that the OP referred to in the photo yesterday is every bit as much of a 'real woman' as anyone else who is larger or lumpier - she just has a figure that I am very envious of, and I suspect that is the case with many other people. I really don't have an issue with this type of advertising and quite honestly, if I'm buying underwear, I would rather see it advertised on a well toned, slim, and attractive woman than a fat, lumpy 67 year old like me!

I don’t think anyone has actually claimed they don’t.

We're talking about a 'thin' (??) woman in an advert.
PP wrote: 'If you're selling knickers show real women in them'.
Thus suggesting slim women don't exist.

Why, though? Models are to give you an idea of how it might look on you.

If you go to the Snag stocking and suspender page some of the models are more than just showing how the products looks IMO.

I think that’s a bit disingenuous. Everyone knows that up until till very recently models were always mega thin rather than an average weight.

OP, thank you for this thread. This is the best thread I've seen on here since I joined and I will always remember the breast that was an elbow 😂

(P.s. in your email image it definitely did look like tit and nip - I showed my husband with zero context and he asked why she had her breast out so hopefully that helps you feel less silly 😂).

And just to add - your picture was top notch and definitely got across what you were describing 👌🏻😂

I ❤️ you OP.
That's a hilarious misunderstanding of ripples and elbows.

Not at all. We haven't had 'waif-like' models since the early 2000s; any brand that dropped the ball got called out and rightly so.
The woman in this photo is slim not thin and it's that picture specifically that we're talking about.

I'm so jealous of your multi-tasking skills, I've never even thought of scrolling social media during exercise, especially outdoors. I'd definitely do myself an injury.

Yes, I did say up until recently. I was just making the point that slim/thin models may touch a nerve after decades of being told we should all fit into the same clothes/look like them (hence the “real women” comment used by a pp).

The early 2000s is 25 years ago... so not remotely 'recent'.
Yet 25 years on people are still using the BS phrase 'real women'. OP was so alarmed at seeing a normal, slim woman, she started a thread about it.

Well..comparatively recently (compared to the 60s/70s/80s).

I don’t think the thread is meant to be about the models weight though. Some people have picked up in that but that’s not why the thread was started.

I'm guessing it was this picture OP? I didn't even notice it until I read your post and went to check my emails from the company.

This is the picture I got on another email from them. I like their marketing, they use a range of ages and sizes. I've bought from them repeatedly.

This is absolute bunkum. The fashion industry is still full of size zero models.

TBF I don't want to look at or be sent any nudity especially if it is emailed to me when I'm buying knickers. The your order has been dispatched picture is like soft porn and there is no need for it. The model does look young and its unfortunate that she's the one who's breast is exposed. I've got no problem with breast feeding in public etc but the way the first picture is its not appropriate its sexualised. Not something I'd want to look at when buying my draws.

That picture wouldn’t have qualified as soft porn in the 1950s. What a puritanical age this is.

If you read the rest of the thread you'll see that it's not her breast, it's her elbow.