Snag Tights email

[WoodSageandSeasalt]

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.

Plus the tights go from size 4 to 36 - not very many models in the smaller or mid range sizes.

@Butteryflakycrust83

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.

God, you're missing the point! It's not about wearing underwear no matter the size, it's the sexualisation and lack of variety of bodies!

@donkey86 Not really, no. No different to what you'd see on most underwear retailer's sites?

You might need to go onto their Facebook page @peachgreen to see the full range of images that are being discussed here - that's where I chose to unsubscribe from.

@SirChenjins

You might need to go onto their Facebook page *@peachgreen* to see the full range of images that are being discussed here - that's where I chose to unsubscribe from.

I'm still not seeing anything beyond what you'd see on most underwear retailers... Yeah, there are women in their pants, but... they're advertising pants, so?

This is porny to me...can hardly see the product they're trying to sell!

I have never seen M&S using the kind of poses that were appearing on my SM - nor have I ever seen them using blokes to advertise their underwear.

I haven't seen the email so it might have gone into my spam box but having checked the knickers on their site I can't see a single photo that looks even vaguely pornographic

I think the posters complaining about the lack of size diversity have a reasonable point - I would like to see more women who aren't catered for by straight size shops (i.e. very tall and slim women, very petite women, disabled women etc) in their latest campaign. But I'm not seeing anything that's fetishy or overly sexual.

*Their women's underwear

@sliceofcake What's porny about it? It's a woman sitting in her underwear. How is it different to, say, these photos on the MS website? www.marksandspencer.com/calvi-embroidery-underwired-plunge-bra-set-a-e/p/ds8c8d413e1775e9b1e8543e289a4d61d2

If you don’t think a lot of their images have a porn aesthetic you really must be being disingenuous. It is actually possible to advertise underwear without it looking like the model is on OnlyFans.

And I see the “you must be a prude, go off and shop at M&S as you’re clearly not a cool girl” stuff has already started….

Anyone who isn’t into porn must be a prude, then? Very progressive.

[quote weebarra]@Hoppinggreen - I have lots of normal sized friends who swear by snag![/quote]
What is normal exactly?

I no longer buy from snag, because I don’t want to look like a snag customer. It’s like a whole cult in itself. I quite like a turquoise leg but the fear of looking like one of those porny Instagram women in snag tights and irregular choice shoes is too much. It’s sad because they’ve ruined all coloured tights for me , not just their own.

Also I don’t want people to think I’m a man in drag.

They don't advertise to average women. It's all morbidly obese in their campaigns. A bit of variety would be nice. Maybe some size 16-18ish? And yes the soft porn aspect seems to be a thing.

Can't see what the fuss is about. Looked at their site and saw a diverse range of models, thin and plump, disabled, young and old. Nice change to see a range of people.

[quote peachgreen]@sliceofcake What's porny about it? It's a woman sitting in her underwear. How is it different to, say, these photos on the MS website? www.marksandspencer.com/calvi-embroidery-underwired-plunge-bra-set-a-e/p/ds8c8d413e1775e9b1e8543e289a4d61d2[/quote]
For a start, I can actually see the underwear I'm supposed to be buying - unlike the photo above.

And furthermore, a woman is advertising women's underwear.

[quote peachgreen]@sliceofcake What's porny about it? It's a woman sitting in her underwear. How is it different to, say, these photos on the MS website? www.marksandspencer.com/calvi-embroidery-underwired-plunge-bra-set-a-e/p/ds8c8d413e1775e9b1e8543e289a4d61d2[/quote]
I think that's porny too tbf...
But M&S are trying to sell the bra. Snag are trying to sell the tights which can hardly be seen in the pic. They've focussed on a woman in a pleather bra, hardly going to make me buy their tights.

@foxgoosefinch Actually, I'm opposed to porn, and I do shop at M&S! I genuinely cannot see many images on the Snag website that I would consider to be "porny" - they're just women in their own environment, some of whom are in their underwear as that's what they're advertising.

[quote peachgreen]@sliceofcake What's porny about it? It's a woman sitting in her underwear. How is it different to, say, these photos on the MS website? www.marksandspencer.com/calvi-embroidery-underwired-plunge-bra-set-a-e/p/ds8c8d413e1775e9b1e8543e289a4d61d2[/quote]
They aren’t selling the underwear though, just the tights - which you can’t see

You can see the garter cut out, which is the selling point of those particular tights. It's also not the only shot of the tights on the website.

Wow, just had a look at their site...I'm all for body positivity but this isn't it. Putting it frankly the larger models featured look a very unhealthy weight and are completely out of proportion and shape. I think "plus size" models are fine but I'm talking a size 18 who looks healthy, is in proportion and has an actual shape, not completely out of shape. I also agree that we don't need to see cellulite etc on full show. I think promoting very obese models as the norm is as dangerous as promoting size zero models as a standard. It's dangerous to the models themselves from a personal health perspective and potentially damaging to people who accept /aspire to those sizes as normal.

You don’t think these images have a deliberate “amateur porn” aesthetic? I normally buy bras/pants from Fantasie (because they do large cup sizes), and I don’t see any of the photos of them on the John Lewis website shot so that it looks like you’re looking up their crotch or arse crack.

The garter cut out isn't the most obvious part of that shot though, is it.