Advanced search

to think that trainers should not be considered 'best clothing?'

(14 Posts)
Kytti Wed 19-Oct-11 18:41:09

I've just seen some child's Adidas trainers on eBay that are described as being 'mint condition as only worn for best.' It just rankles. If we are teaching 2 and 3 year-olds that this kind of clothing is acceptable as 'for best', what hope do any of us have in the UK? I mean, really?

Do people honestly think that a tracksuit and trainers is acceptable as smart clothing? shock

Call me old-fashioned, but aren't trainers for exercising and playing out in?

Grr. angry

squeakyfreakytoy Wed 19-Oct-11 18:42:24

Have you seen the price of trainers grin..

worraliberty Wed 19-Oct-11 18:43:13

* Rolls eyes *

As a selling point 'only worn for best' would mean he hasn't worn them out climbing trees and playing football in the park.

And why would a 2 or 3yr old care about what's 'best' when it comes to footwear? confused

bibbitybobbitybloodyaxe Wed 19-Oct-11 18:43:29

are you actually being serious?

piratecaaaaaaaaaghhht Wed 19-Oct-11 18:44:04

Adidas are not for best, they are my second best.!

usualsuspect Wed 19-Oct-11 18:45:24

My Ds has never owned a pair of actual shoes

He wears his non tatty VANs for best

Kytti Wed 19-Oct-11 18:51:34

... don't know what a VAN is ...

Yes, serious. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!!!

colken Wed 19-Oct-11 19:36:07

Kytti, I agree with you. You are not old fashioned. Society has become slovenly if people think it's all right to go to a wedding or even just school in trainers.

It's a question of behaving properly and etiquette. If someone came to a do that I was planning as being 'posh' in any way, I would be offended if anyone arrived in trainers (unless there was something wrong with a foot), especially if the invitation had asked for smart dress.

The price of trainers is nothing to do with it. If a child wants trainers costing £80 or a similar price, he should be told that that amount of money is not available and a cheaper pair will be bought - if it has to be trainers. My children had trainers only for exercise and casual wear. School and formal functions of any sort demanded proper shoes.

Warraliberty - a 2 or 3 year old will not care but the parents should so that the child learns to care.

usualsuspect Wed 19-Oct-11 19:40:24

My ds wore converse for school <shrugs>

Blu Wed 19-Oct-11 19:41:28

I think you may be over-stressing yourself to anticipate the end of civillised society we know it on the wording of an ebay advert.

ScaredBear Wed 19-Oct-11 19:43:48

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Irishchic Wed 19-Oct-11 19:45:40

YABU and utterly ridiculous. Trainers are here to stay, like them or not.

toboldlygo Wed 19-Oct-11 19:50:20

I'd take 'for best' as 'not worn for playing football/climbing trees/wallowing in mud but only worn for visiting Auntie Margaret with the new pale carpet and shopping in town at the weekend'.

I have running trainers, trail shoes for dog walking and 'going out' trainers that I'd wear to go shopping or to the pub. The first two are shabby and covered in mud, the latter more fashionable and a great deal cleaner.

witchyhills Wed 19-Oct-11 19:51:32

DS has always worn trainers, apart from a couple of pairs of Clarks when he was first walking
he always has a pair for "best" and he has worn some until they have fallen apart
yabvu, and getting all worked up about nothing

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now