This is why people are creeped out by Snag Tights

[WowStarsWow]

🙈

The advert reminds me of a panto dame. Nothing new.

I've bought snag tights before, I can't say this advert would stop me buying them again.

But that might be a woman in the picture?

I find the adverts for these two pairs to be much more overtly sexual to be quite honest

snagtights.com/products/fishnets-blue-hawaiian

snagtights.com/products/fishnets-pina-colada?pr_prod_strat=description&pr_rec_id=44d67c86d&pr_rec_pid=4567907467306&pr_ref_pid=4391641907242&pr_seq=uniform

I don't know Snag tights but their whole aesthetic is very weird. Is it customers who submit the images? They're so diverse and some of the pictures are just a bit shit.

Don't Cosplay people tend to dress as adults? Not little girls?

It’s certainly no coincidence that the marketing team chose to use a man dressed as a fetishised image of a small child, no.

Awful advert but I will never again wear any others. Snags are fab.

No, Mumsnet is only known for being 'transphobic' with misogynist femphobes. The fact that you said that, proves you are not a supporter of women having their own spaces. Your type always out yourselves. You're very transparent in your hatred of women and love of paraphilia/men dressed as little girls.

What are these - completely in the dark???

Mine developed a hole after 3 washes. Was I unlucky? I do love their colours. I know nothing about marketing but maybe they should emphasize their very wide range more rather than all this fetish stuff.

Well we've all agreed they're not actually dressed as a girl. You think they're dressed as a fetishised version of one, and I don't see it because I think they look like a Cosplayer (i.e, not a girl). Now we are back full circle in the conversation.

Men dressed as sexualised children give me the ick I don’t care if that means some posters think thats kink shaming. I blocked snag tights advertising a while ago due to that.

You miss the point. Those photos are of adults DRESSED as adults in a sexual pose. Which is perfectly acceptable.

The one on this thread is of a man DRESSED AS A LITTLE GIRL and in a sexual manner. Which is not acceptable.

It's about paedophilia. Not about 'sexual poses' per se.

This is in plain sight. And you (and the other misogynist/lover of paraphilia on here) cannot see it.

What is the sexual manner of the advert in the OP? The person is fully dressed, the pose is not sexual.

Creepy as fuck.
They've lost my custom. Anyway their tights are pretty rubbish.

@ElenaSt, what an absolutely horrid, shitty little thing to say about a person. I'm not entirely sure why you're proud of it.

Is that the Lolita cosplay aesthetic? I see that out and about in the city, but it's usually women. I didn't realise that was a man at first.

I don't understand it? It's odd.

Gosh, people jump on anything to call people transphobic.

It is not transphobic to not not want to see a grown adult, man or woman or anything in between dressed as a toddler and surrounded by toddler toys.

This ad is not ok and it has nothing to do with a man wearing the tights (by the way, this is done for the ad - what makes you think that person is actually trans as opposed to a man dressed up for a photo shoot?).

And so is yours!

It’s just Lolita aesthetic, I know dozens of women who dress like this every day as part of their normal life (was part of a massive cosplay group) and they love it, it makes them happy. Snag tights are obviously trying to focus their advertising on that specific alternative demographic and in the mean time if it makes others angry, well they say no publicity is bad publicity.

I disagree. There’s no eye contact, they aren’t in bed, they aren’t showing much skin etc. They’re stroking a unicorn on their lap is the only thing I see, which isn’t enough to convince me.

I’m scared. Scared that when we express worry about the sexualisation of children within mainstream advertising we’re called transphobic.

@HailAdrian I’ve not seen anyone say anything against men wearing tights. Or trans women wearing tights. Don’t you get it ? What people wear does not bother us. What we are worried about is the message this advert subtly gives. ‘It’s ok to sexualise childhood’.

This has nothing to do with liking toys, teddies, dungarees etc as an adult. To compare the two is comparing chalk and cheese.

Im so sick of being accused of being non-inclusive when expressing discomfort about the sexualisation of children.

I think the association of this weird fetishised stuff with trans does a huge disservice to many trans people. Why do they have to be represented by weird extremes?

Its like deciding that only porn imagery should be used to represent women and anyone objecting is just a bigot.

Oh god, stop pretending this is anything to do with children. Your faux naivety is not convincing.

They’re stroking a unicorn on their lap is the only thing I see

Yes because that is a very typical image in advertising a man stroking their unicorn on their lap.

I just don't see anyone who looks like me on their site

Neither do I. Kinda debunks the “inclusive” bollocks, doesn’t it ?