Would this ad make you want to buy these pants?

[Billandben444]

www.johnlewis.com/and-or-coralie-bikini-knickers-deep-blue-multi/p5725920?s_share=jlappdroid

This picture is very unflattering - why does John Lewis think it's a good look? I'd probably look even worse in them by the way.

I think the woman is fine but the knickers are a size too small on her and look like they're digging in.

I'm all for a broader range of models...it stops me being horrifically disappointed when I don't look like the willowy model in something

What I LOVE is the no airbrushing policy on these.

Here is a perfectly slim model who has...gasp...a teeny little roll when she stands in a certain way.

Because that's what human bodies do.

If we took away airbrushing and other photo manipulation it would stop people trying to sort away perfectly normal human physiology.

Same for people trying to achieve the perfect, flawless skin they see on models - who don't even have perfect, flawless skin themselves in reality.

ASOS also has a no airbrushing policy on all its models and product lines.

@PizzaDays - did you where is said I browsed around? And the example I shared?

I think that looks very attractive.

If you don't, I think you should explore your vanilla horizons.

That poor model being called all sorts just because she chooses to wax her fanny!
This really is Mumsnet at its finest.

They’re nice pants, if they weren’t £18 I’d buy them. The model doesn’t affect whether they’re nice pants or not. That’s how those pants will look on some women, it’s good to be able to see that before buying them.

@EinsteinaGogo

@PizzaDays - did you where is said I browsed around? And the example I shared?

I think that looks very attractive.

If you don't, I think you should explore your vanilla horizons.

Wanting clothes to look good is 'vanilla'. Rightyo then.

No one is objecting to the model and anyone at any size can look good with the right choices.

Glad to see the advertising worked and caused you to part with your money. Gullible.

[quote WaltzingToWalsingham]@KiloWhat I think you'll find it is. In OP's second post, she states, "As to what is the point of this post, it was to encourage discussion on how female bodies are portrayed."
But if you want my opinion on the pants: no I wouldn't buy them because I dont like underwear made of synthetic materials.[/quote]
How female bodies are portrayed does not equal calling the model fat

@EinsteinaGogo

@PizzaDays - did you where is said I browsed around? And the example I shared?

I think that looks very attractive.

If you don't, I think you should explore your vanilla horizons.

Ps I missed your link and the clothing on the other model looks much better. It’s about the right clothing for the model, not just shoving whatever they have to hand and putting it on 'real' models regardless of look.

(I think that all size models are real - even size 0, for those who like to insult thinner models. Airbrushing and photoshopping is not 'real')

No, I don't really appreciate that style of advertising. I'm not sure where everyone lives that she is average- she looks quite unhealthy to me. Not size wise but tone wise- she looks like she just sits on a sofa all day.

I'd appreciate more models who are short, disabled, skin blemishes, not typically facially attractive. Keeping their body good is their job, they are supposed to show clothes at their best. These pants look awful, they look tight and uncomfortable.

I love that retailers have started to show un (or "less") airbrushed models in all sorts of clothes. As a fatty myself it's refreshing to be able to consider more accurately what clothes might look like.

While I don't necessarily think that larger women automatically equate with bigger pants and can wear what they wish, I agree that this particular pair do nothing for her. If a woman had come onto MN and started a thread "do these pants suit me?" it would be a resounding no, I think!

I think it is brilliant that someone is actually using real women to model clothes and underwear.

Unfortunately, the knickers are (rather horrible) at least a size too small for the model.
It will prejudice some people against real size models, simply because the knickers themselves are ill fitting and nasty
Just imagine her in better fitting knickers, shorts or whatever. Much better.

I know models are real women - I should have said realistic and varied sized women

the knickers are quite cute imo. I am not sure its that theyre too small, but tbh, all bikini style low rise knickers cut into me like that a bit. I prefer a sturdier brief with more fabric. I dont care about it being see-through, but that picture is a useful picture to see how those briefs sit.
Most of us wear knickers and most of us arent slim our entire lives.
Brands aimed at a young and trendy demographic still tend to use very slender models, and im glad that more online stores are using more average shaped models, especially since we cant try things on in store as much.
There are some online shops such as boden which always use very very slender and tall models and I do find it harder to envision whether theyd suit me or my shape

@Giggorata

I think it is brilliant that someone is actually using real women to model clothes and underwear.

Unfortunately, the knickers are (rather horrible) at least a size too small for the model.
It will prejudice some people against real size models, simply because the knickers themselves are ill fitting and nasty
Just imagine her in better fitting knickers, shorts or whatever. Much better.

All women are real. Including traditional models.

Problem is the model's whole job is to make the clothes look their best. If they’re not doing that, then they’re not doing their job.

In this case, I think it’s the fitters who have failed - the clothes are clearly too small.

Regardless of this, some body types and shapes will be better for advertising some types of clothes and not others (just like in real life where something may suit me, but not suit you).

Personally I think she looks fantastic.

@wheresmymojo

What I LOVE is the no airbrushing policy on these.

Here is a perfectly slim model who has...gasp...a teeny little roll when she stands in a certain way.

Because that's what human bodies do.

If we took away airbrushing and other photo manipulation it would stop people trying to sort away perfectly normal human physiology.

Same for people trying to achieve the perfect, flawless skin they see on models - who don't even have perfect, flawless skin themselves in reality.

ASOS also has a no airbrushing policy on all its models and product lines.

That photo has been airbrushed though? The bra is sheer and they’ve airbrushed out her nipples?

The OP has selected a particular contentious example where the pants don't fit for effect
No I haven't. Upthread I said that this particular ad with this specific picture appeared on my FB page.

I love that the model is a normal body shape

draped over a stick thin model

I'm completely in favour of models with normal bodies being used

think it is brilliant that someone is actually using real women to model clothes

What's an "abnormal" body or body shape? 3 legs? Covered in scales? A tail?

All women are real. I used to be what nowadays is a size 6 or even a 4 back in the days when those sizes were called an 8. I'm now a 14- 16 and I don't want to think what that would have been back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I've always been real and my body is and was normal.

I'm having a deja vu moment here.

Didn't we have a thread exactly this very photo a few days ago?

But no, it won't make me buy the product.

I can’t stand this awful trend of using non model like women to model clothing.

There is nothing wrong with the woman or her figure but I do not want to look like that and wang to see the clothes modelled in traditional models with figures to aspire to.

You might as well have a fat builder with a builders bum crack on show, modelling men’s jeans if they are going down this route.

Don’t be ridiculous.

So @Shapiro, you want to buy a dream. Fair enough. But whatever you say about there being 'nothing wrong' with this model, your prejudice is written clearly for all to see in your last sentence where you say 'you might as well have a fat builder' modelling men's jeans. Are you saying this model is the equivalent of a 'fat builder'? Because that's how it comes across.

@Shapiro

I can’t stand this awful trend of using non model like women to model clothing.

There is nothing wrong with the woman or her figure but I do not want to look like that and wang to see the clothes modelled in traditional models with figures to aspire to.

You might as well have a fat builder with a builders bum crack on show, modelling men’s jeans if they are going down this route.

Who says what's 'model-like', though? Why does 'model-like' have to be a body type that the majority of women don't share? Why is it unreasonable for women with any of the diverse range of body types that also exist to want to be represented?

What do the male models look like? Are there any beer bellies? Man boobs? Probably not because this is all about publicity and trying to get us to spend money.

My first thought on clicking on the link was "oh dear, I absolutely wouldn't buy those knickers going off that ad" but I am able to realise that the problem lies within me.

We are so used to seeing stick-thin, unflawed, photoshopped bodies in adverts that it is still slightly shocking to see a "normal" body.

We have been brainwashed for years and years - the only time I ever see other normal women's bodies apart from my own is once or twice a year on the beach - and even then it's rare for anyone other than the young and thin to wander round in a bikini.

Hopefully with more models like the one in the link being used, mindsets will start to change as it becomes more normalised.