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?

Brilliant thread, @AmIJustAPrude . Love your good humour. Ignore all the po. Think you should use that voucher. I'd never heard of them either and now quite fancy some smart pants, having just bought a pack of very plain ones from Sainsbury's (£7 for 5 pairs, mind)

If this is the photo then this is not a breast! It’s just her other arm you can see leaning on the rug! You can’t see any boobage at all!!! You need to have another look!!!

Calm down, Jen. We established this 500 posts ago.

Thank you for this thread OP. It has given me such a giggle - I shared it with dh too who also has a laugh 🤣

Thats her left elbow ffs!!

'It's an elbow' is going to become the new 'cancel the cheque'.

She knows ‘ffs!!’

Read the thread ‘ffs!!’

Me again
I actually went back and placed a second order after receiving an email saying an extra 10% off sale prices .
Was refreshing to see models of all shapes, sizes, ages and nationalities without an airbrush (as far as I can tell)
so I now have several pairs of knickers and a few bras to come. Ha ha.
oh and I would be extremely cautious of the person who implied that those of us that enjoy colours/ patterns are doing it for kink or whatever, if your mind goes there YOU are the dodgy one not me.

Guys, do you think I should cancel the cheque? 😉

Ahahahahhahagahahhaahaa this is all I will see when people sunbake topless on their tummies from now on..... Thank you OP

@DiaryofaProvincialLady yes I someone might have mentioned that already......

You probably need glasses.....lol

Yes Snag use models of many different sizes and some have physical challenges but everything is presented as it should be ; merely as a bunch of ordinary women modelling pants and tights on various bodies.

Not "wierd" and not "fetish type" , not meant to shock or be seen as some kind of alternative art, it's just some women in pants, stockings and tights. Yes the occasional man in tights makes an appearance, presumably because they want to keep their legs warm or maybe they just like tights...
it seems they have a way to go .
The tights are amazing BTW.

You keep telling yourself that.

?????

Well thanks to this thread I just bought some sale pants, a cami and a bodysuit - they better be good!
great thread though, thanks op!

You raised two points

1. Ethics of models that look underage with exposed breasts/implicit sexualisation
2. Unnecessarily exposed breasts/implicit sexualisation in direct mail marketing materials

Of course you will have made an immediate assumption about a model’s age range based on appearance. You then reasoned yourself out of the worst case scenario — as if all companies will act within reasonable boundaries, which is known not to be the case.

1. Using women/girls who appear inappropriately young —even if they aren’t — is, at best, irresponsible. At worst, it is a form of grooming to shift the — unwitting — audience’s boundaries on mater they have not chosen to view. It normalises images like that.

2. Exposed breasts and sexualised positioning are unnecessary, almost ironically so, in bra adverts. Doing so is another instance of forced exposure to female exposure.

We call both of those acts grooming.

The company either employed marketers who have no idea of responsibility when dealing with female/young/naked images or the co. is trying to push boundaries of ethical acceptance/normalistion. Maybe for shock or for other reasons.

Being called “prudish” is how women’s safety mechanisms and self preservation are eroded.

I think you should spend the gift card. They’ve had more than £20s exposure on this thread.

I do think it’s weird to have topless models when they sell bras.

The website pictures all look fine

Dunno about ethics of modelling an all that but I reckon Ella & Me/Ella Bodi want their knicker design back. This Stripe and Stare looks a lot like the old Kinky Knickers design Mary Portas was involved with for the tv. If you are going to spend £50 on pants, at least make sure they are designed and made in Manchester!

ellaandme.co.uk/collections/classic-fit-knickers

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/stripe---stare-ltd-a22-1179196-stripe--stare-ltd.html. The young girl was 27 when the advert was shot.

If you read the description of the image, it's not the same as the one I was talking about.

I do think it’s weird to have topless models when they sell bras.

I thought this, too!

I've had a nice reply from Stripe & Stare:

PLEASE don’t worry and I’m glad you see the funny side! 😊 That said, you were spot on to challenge us – we always appreciate genuine feedback – good, bad and ugly. I will forward your email on to our e-marketing team for their reference.

So it's not even boob and it's an elbow?!
FFS typical MN lol