In praise of Snag tights

[skirted84]

I think there has already been praise of Snag tights on here but I can honestly say they are the comfiest and best fitting tights I've had. Simply the black 80 denier. And partly due to the substantial elastic they don't need pulled up every 2 minutes, or even 2 hours. Not a Xmas present but arrived quite recently and definitely not my last from them. My new favourite, previously M&S.

I know they have had their share of controversy but their products are top quality.

[FranTastic444]

Can’t recall any controversy about this manufacturer. They were in the news recently due to a fire in an adjacent unit. I have them on my list of brands to try out.

[Stevej180]

I have a couple of pairs - they're excellent for the price. And because they're sized, you can actually get ones that fit.

[Seb]

My wife and a few of her friends really like snags. I do like the tights too, but my wifes are a bit too big for me and needs readjusting every now and then which is a pain, going to try ordering a size D instead next time she sends off and order.

[phathack]

Ordered some to give them a try.
Well see how they work for me.

[DrFishnets]

I’ve been wanting to buy from Snag tights for a while now as their selection looks very good. However, it looks like Snag tights selling to men are annoying a lot of posters on mumsnet.com. Some are not happy with men wanting tights to be unisex and more or less saying that Snag tights are providing for men’s kinks and fetishes. Some of the posts on the link I’ll provide just make me roll my eyes and shake my head.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4 ... nks?page=1

BTW I came across mumsnet.com forum by searching “men in skirts” in google search.

[Barleymower]

I’ve been wanting to buy from Snag tights for a while now as their selection looks very good. However, it looks like Snag tights selling to men are annoying a lot of posters on mumsnet.com. Some are not happy with men wanting tights to be unisex and more or less saying that Snag tights are providing for men’s kinks and fetishes. Some of the posts on the link I’ll provide just make me roll my eyes and shake my head.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4 ... nks?page=1

BTW I came across mumsnet.com forum by searching “men in skirts” in google search.

I was tempted to throw in my two pennies on the thread. I had a look and backed away. It's savage.

[Ray]

I wouldn’t worry too much about Mumsnet. It’s well known for being judgemental and socially highly conservative. A bit “Daily Mail”.

As with Daily Mail readers, there’s no rational debate to be had with them.

[AintNoCureForLove]

My partner has several pairs of these tights. As has ben said, she finds them very good for fit and sizing. Great colours too. They also sell stockings and suspenders, and they are also excellent for the same reasons.

Mumsnet and men in tights, thanks for the link, strong views, best treated with curiosity and sanguine interest. Im sure we all recall how women in trousers were actively frowned upon, probably took until the 1980s to be truly accepted as unisex. I would expect Tights will eventually travel the same road if enough men want to wear them. Its an anomaly that women in trousers is unremarkable but men in tights or stockings is often viewed as crossdressing. Plus ⁸Bonus sales for Snag et al!
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

https://snagtights.com/collections/skin-tone-stockings

[Coder]

BTW I came across mumsnet.com forum by searching “men in skirts” in google search.

I was tempted to throw in my two pennies on the thread. I had a look and backed away. It's savage.

Yeah - I don't think much good can come from contributing an opinion over there - not sure it'd be welcome either (us being men, of course).

I read through that thread, being the curious person I tend to be. I found the discussion interesting and it got me thinking about an aspect of marketing. Related topics come up here from time to time - and I guess the crux of it is this:

What is more inclusive: saying "Women and men" or "for anyone (ie, unisex)"? We've seen all kinds of marketing - which marketing makes you more likely to feel included? When it says "men" on the label, or when it's generic "people of all shapes"? The latter tends to make me think the company is being lazy/weak and doesn't have the guts to claim men can wear their clothes.

Does inclusion even matter? For me I don't care except that when I see "men" as part of a label, it makes things less weird and normalizes MIS and related.

[crfriend]

What is more inclusive: saying "Women and men" or "for anyone (ie, unisex)"?

Simple: "for all". One need not even specify gender, sex, alignment, &c.: save the supposed requirement for bipedal locomotion using legs and feet. Don't even contemplate the dratted term "unisex" as that's a coded bomb that will backfire on men every single time. Just market the apparel as "for all". Done. Nice and clean.

[Barleymower]

Does inclusion even matter? For me I don't care except that when I see "men" as part of a label, it makes things less weird and normalizes MIS and related.

I think it matters immensely. I could not bring myself to read all of the thread. I was enraged enough with what I read. For example a lady saying: "A man (with a fetish) speaks and the company fall over themselves to placate him".

People need to learn that we are all conditioned from birth. It is wrong that some women feel it is their right to dress in certain clothing and if a man does the same, he is a fetistist. There is no difference between men or women we are all people. I would have wasted my energy explaining.

I don't just want to see a world where men are free to wear skirts. We already have that.

[Stevej180]

I'm going to say in this case I interpret the 'for all' line as being inclusive of all body shapes, deliberately including plus-sized women. That it also catches men is a marketing bonus for them I expect.

[Coder]

I'm going to say in this case I interpret the 'for all' line as being inclusive of all body shapes, deliberately including plus-sized women. That it also catches men is a marketing bonus for them I expect.

Yep - that's basically what their marketing is saying. Men being included are a side-effect, but not the intended market.

And that's why I posed the question about inclusion - "for all" is nice, but it's left up to the eyes of the beholder. It doesn't make you question who "for all" belongs to. "For all" could just as easily be read as "for all women" - I think it lets people fall back to their biased ideas about who can wear what.

[crfriend]

"For all" could just as easily be read as "for all women" - I think it lets people fall back to their biased ideas about who can wear what.

And if we allow that to happen then we're simply shooting ourselves in the feet. Stupidly.

"All" is an absolute. Thus, no "sex", no "genderr" [sic], no subtext -- it is all inclusive, 100%.

We, need to move beyond the "mumsnet" isolated and ignorant world before we can properly grasp the wider one waiting for us. In other words, we need to learn to ignore the noise and ignorance that surrounds and presses on us -- and to fight back actively if the ignorant pressure continues.