Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Style and beauty

Looking for style advice? Chat all about it here. For the latest discounts on fashion and beauty, sign up for Mumsnet Moneysaver emails.

Original poster

Snag Tights email

378 replies

WoodSageandSeasalt · 14/01/2022 10:49

Fully prepared to get slaughtered for this but here goes.

I've bought tights from Snag before (and really like them) so I'm obviously on their mailing list. I'm a shortarsed size 16-18 so very far from a supermodel.

They've emailed this morning to advertise their new knicker range with images of women wearing them in all their glory and it really wasn't what I wanted in my inbox on a Friday morning. My own wobbly cellulite covered arse is bad enough, I don't need to look at other people's.

It feels like the whole 'body positivity' thing is going too far to me, I'm all for people being comfortable in their own skin but does that have to involve sharing it with the rest of the world? Leaving aside the fact it's not generally healthy to be over a certain size - and that includes me.

OP posts:
Puffalicious · 14/01/2022 15:50

I’d like to see them dominate in their original promise, which was—essentially—our tights fit everyone. Genius.

This!

IsolaPribby · 14/01/2022 15:51

@weebarra

I agree. I'm a loyal customer as I'm a very short fat woman but I think they're marketing themselves as only for larger women whereas their whole USP is that they work for everyone. I have bought two pairs of knickers today - I tend to buy granny pants due to the overhang caused by three big babies and three ELCS, but that was despite rather than because of the email. I'm glad larger women are positive about themselves, I'm sure as hell not!
@weebarra

Please may I ask which size tights you buy from them, and if they fit well? As a size 16 shorty, I found the tights I ordered were far too long in the leg, but great around the middle.

Also, I agree with most everyone about the email. It was a bit of a shocker at 7.30am!

IBelieveInAThingCalledScience · 14/01/2022 15:51

I agree.

The vibe is fetish, rather than body positivity.

SliceOfCakeCupOfTea · 14/01/2022 15:52

I bought some tights from there a couple days ago and when I was scrolling through there were some pics of women in lingerie and photos of only the top half...this was on the tights page.

Also pics of women with knee length dresses and knee high boots...advertising tights. FFS just let me see their sodding legs!!

I'd have several different sized and shaped women modelling the same tights shot from the waist down with no boots on. Can't remember which website it was but somewhere you could select what model to view the clothes on. Would be much better

nordica · 14/01/2022 15:55

I saw the video on Instagram yesterday and was tempted to comment to ask if they actually have the new items available for anyone under size 22?

I'm a size 12/14 and far from slim (actually overweight for my height) and while it's good to see a range of different sizes and shapes, I definitely feel like Snag is at the extreme end of only showing very large bodies. I buy tights from them because it's actually not easy to find tights that fit elsewhere at my size because I'm short - normal tights just tend to get longer as you go up the sizes.

ThePlantsitter · 14/01/2022 15:57

Having to ask/ check the website to see if a shop sells a size that will fit you is pretty common if you're plus size. It's not that difficult either.

Fritilleries · 14/01/2022 15:57

I almost ordered but the insta feed left me feeling really turned off. I don't want to see morbidly obese women in sexually suggestive poses at any point. Sell tights, not sex!!

JuneOsborne · 14/01/2022 16:00

Let's have more real women's bodies modelling clothes, we said!

But not that real, huh?

Puffalicious · 14/01/2022 16:01

@JuneOsborne

Let's have more real women's bodies modelling clothes, we said!

But not that real, huh?

You're missing the point. Noone is saying the plus-sized models shouldn't be there, just more variety do everyone is represented and sell tights not sex!
peachgreen · 14/01/2022 16:01

I'm confused as to how posters want them to advertise pants - which is what this morning's email was advertising - without showing... people in their pants. What exactly makes it "fetishy"? How is it different to the models in their pants on the M&S website?

The women in the email are wearing t-shirts, fluffy socks, they're posing with their cats - it's not exactly soft porn?

picklemewalnuts · 14/01/2022 16:01

It started for me with the swimsuit campaign and the garter tights. Then it got steadily more fetish vibe, less diverse bodies vibe.

I love the outfits even with boots and skirt, because is showcases how to wear them. I don't want to wear them for a boudoir shot, but actually out. Where I will look good rather than shocktastic.

The pornification of bigger bodies (which I have) is just irritating.

peachgreen · 14/01/2022 16:02

*Let's have more real women's bodies modelling clothes, we said!

But not that real, huh?*

Indeed. And heaven forefend we suggest that fat people might - gasp - have SEX.

foxgoosefinch · 14/01/2022 16:02

@JugglingJanuary

Gosh. Imagine having to see unusually large bodies or morbidly obese bodies... however will you cope. 🙄🙄🙄
Again - it’s not the bodies, it’s the porn aesthetic. I don’t like the glamorising of porn whatever size the bodies are. It’s not really any different from that faux Terry Richardson look that lots of “edgy” companies adopted for underweight-looking models in the 00s.

Whatever size the models are, I don’t like the webcamming aesthetic that pretends porn is empowering - it’s the very opposite of body positive in the true sense. I can’t think of any better evidence that a company is being either hypocritical or dumb than trying to sell an exploitative cheap porn aesthetic back to the normal women who are made to feel shit by it in the first place.

It isn’t “here is an alternative to a porn culture of objectifying women’s bodies”, it’s just “buy our tights, fat women, and you can look objectified and porny too”. It’s a no from me!

IrishMumInLondon2020 · 14/01/2022 16:03

The whole vibe is pretty grim to be honest.

SirChenjins · 14/01/2022 16:03

I unsubscribed to them - their penchant for using blokes and soft porn/fat fetish to advertise tights didn't appeal. Shame, as I think they're closing off a significant target market.

CamomileTeabag · 14/01/2022 16:06

Yeah it makes me want to turn their ads off too. It's not pretty (in my eyes).
But I suppose this is exactly how larger women (and men, it seems) feel when they see ads featuring a "normal" size women.
Perhaps they have found a gap in the market, and it's not you & me.

Popsicle33 · 14/01/2022 16:07

I love how already someone has humble brag complained that they don't cater for slim women!

Seriously though, the website is grotesque and more like a fetish, pervy site. It's still not as gross as that trans friendly firm...shudder

peachgreen · 14/01/2022 16:07

Can someone find me some examples of this "porn aesthetic"? Because I've just been through the entirety of the online shop and I can't find anything. The closest is the four women advertising the mock garters - they're in their underwear. But there isn't a porn aesthetic?

And showing images of fat women is not "using a fat fetish". It's just fat women existing, in clothes, and sometimes in underwear?

TokyoSushi · 14/01/2022 16:07

I've also just looked on the website, I'm not necessarily sure those pictures are just to model the clothes...

picklemewalnuts · 14/01/2022 16:09

Actually, fair do, the pants pics don't look too bad. The swimsuit ones, garter tights and so on were bothersome.

peachgreen · 14/01/2022 16:11

Actually, fair do, the pants pics don't look too bad. The swimsuit ones, garter tights and so on were bothersome.

Why? The swimsuit ones are just women in swimsuits. There's no sexually suggestive environments or posting. The garter ones are more sexual I guess, purely because the women are wearing nice lingerie, but again, they're not exactly pornographic. They're just plus size women in nice underwear, photographed in a home environment.

Butteryflakycrust83 · 14/01/2022 16:12

Fat women existing in underwear, posing exactly like how straight size women pose for UNDERWEAR, is porn apparently.

Just go to M and S - Snag dont want you being uppity and judgy.

Puffalicious · 14/01/2022 16:12

love how already someone has humble brag complained that they don't cater for slim women!

I don't see a humble brag. Can you quote it? Just by stating you're slim (I'm not) isn't a brag!

donkey86 · 14/01/2022 16:12

@peachgreen

Can someone find me some examples of this "porn aesthetic"? Because I've just been through the entirety of the online shop and I can't find anything. The closest is the four women advertising the mock garters - they're in their underwear. But there isn't a porn aesthetic?

And showing images of fat women is not "using a fat fetish". It's just fat women existing, in clothes, and sometimes in underwear?

You don’t think the angles here are a bit porn-y?
peachgreen · 14/01/2022 16:13

The only thing I can see is that if you specifically click into the garter pages, some of the reviewer submitted photos are designed to be "sexy". But that's one or two out of hundreds of photos - and aren't fat women allowed to be sexy sometimes?