To be really surprised at these little girls' boots being sold by John Lewis?

[TheBolter]

I mean, they start at size 9 - which means my daughters could have been wearing them at age three??!

here

Personally, I think they are vile. I thought John Lewis were meant to be part of the Let Girls be Girls campaign?

Ditto, Chil.
How many mature adult women would wear boots with shiny rhinestones on them? Seems like a very little girl feature to me. . And if we accept patent leather on school shoes, why not on boots for small girls?

'I favour choice when it comes to retailing. Shops are entitled to offer any goods they see fit. Consumers are entitled to say 'no thanks'. I don't think insisting that others share our personal tastes ever works.'
'You will only prevent sexualisation of children if/when the people who think a padded bikini is OK for a 3-year-old are persuaded to change their opinion. Banning clothing doesn't do that.'

I'm sure the tobacco companies use the 'choice' argument against age limits on goods, and advertising etc...

The boots are in bad taste, and I don't think you can ban them especially as I don't think they overtly sexualise girls. But padded bikinis etc are diferent, they are just wrong, IMO.

Ideal footwear for Jordan's daughter? Agree they're bloody awful, as is/was the vile song on the advert. Me and my daughter just took the piss out of that... It's a hard fight we mothers of girls are up against and we can only lead by example and hope for the best.

I really don't get why these are seen as overly sexual. (I do get that they're horrible and over-priced!)

agree
horrible not sexual

They're ugly as fuck, but I don't see that thay have a heel particularly, or that they're sexual.

Leli Kelli are the most awful things ever!

I think they are utterly gross and vomitacious but not actually sexual, just common and nasty (cat's bum emoticon)

Quite sure dd will want some as soon as she is old enough!

She can have a pair of dms instead.

I really dislike anything with obvious branding on it so tbh I'd have more of a problem with that, although I agree they look totally impractical.

My DD is 6 and has had had knee high boots every winter sice she was three, but usually fairly plain and with a nice chunky, practical sole and heel.

She has just been given silver ones for her birthday though (still sensible/clumpy bottoms) - I call them her 'Barberella' boots, whilst DH just looks on with a cat's bum mouth !

OK, good to hear I'm not in the minority when it comes to finding these boots vile. But perhaps I am when it comes to finding them to look somewhat sexual. To me they look as if the designers at Lelli Kelly have tried to create a boot that is about as hookerish as they can dare go. I mean, wtf is the point of putting a heel on a child's boot?

My dd has knee length boots, (chunky brown ones) and black patent school shoes, so I have nothing against the height of them nor the material they are made of, but to me it's just the combination of elements (heeled, black, patent, high boots with rhinestones that look like studs!) that make these boots unacceptable (old prude emoticon).

Thanks for the replies all .

They are VILE. I wouldn't buy them for a 15 year old, never mind a 3 year old.

I am with those who do not understand the problem

They are not high heeled ... they are not in any way sexy

They are foul and I would not buy them but the premise of the OP is not one that I agree with

The only reason I wouldn't buy DD them is because of the heel, and the price obv, otherwise I don't have a problem with them, and don't see them as sexy in any way at all.

She'll probably have a similar, but flat pair from a cheaper shop this winter.

I'm taking DD shopping next Friday for boots amongst other things, and have just showed her what is available from the shop we mainly go to.
She likes these
Not my choice, but I don't object to buying them for her.

Last time we were in there, they had something like this, but completely flat and in the children's department, which I really like for her.

However, if I were choosing, I'd go for these
They look warm and practical, yet aren't naf.

I don't like them but I think there is something about Lelli Kelly that gets many on MN (and others I know) particularly militant and prone to overreact. The price and marketing I suspect.
It is hardly the same as a padded bikini or a provocative slogan - in relation to which I wholly support the MN campaign.
If you don't like them, buy your DD another pair, but not worth haranguing JL - who are generally pretty good I think.

check out the shoe zone website if you want true horrors of teh child shoe kind.

I think they should all come with a warning that if you allow your child to wear them you take responsibilty for right minded people to sneer at you in the street.
your details should also be taken at the till in order for SS to come along and investigate you as you are clearly not right in the head

They are rancid, IMO.

Gigantaur
I bought DD's winter boots from Shoezone last year, and they were like the last pair I linked to in my PP, except they had a pink crystal heart on them.
I bought her current shoes from there too- flat Mary Janes.
Many of the cheaper shops have horrid shoes, and heels which I wouldn't buy, but you can get an appropriate pair from them too.

ugly - are they from the my lil hooker range

i'm sure they do sell some that are suitable for children but the vast majority of the things i see as i walk past are utterly disgracefull.

inch high heels on shoes in a size that would have fit my DD at age 3 for example.

I have actually seen a woman try them on a little girl of about 5. I judged her. it was not positive

Aye, I'm getting defensive because that's what I can afford, and I hate people thinking I buy tacky heeled crap, just because I buy from there and similar shops.
They do have some awful shoes.
When we go in, I grab all of the shoes DD is allowed and then she can choose, then we try them on and she's left with what fits.
It's usually between two or three pairs.
They don't last, but I don't expect them to.
I buy shoes in August, boots around now, more boots at Christmas and more shoes at Easter.
DD's feet are growing quickly, and I'm sure even dear shoes look worn.
I spend around £60 I'd guess on school shoes/boots each year and that suits me and my budget.

if it helps I bought DD a pair of Ugg type boots last year from shoes zone.

and i got myself some slippers.

DD had some Ugg cardigans from Primark, they looked great with her Fair Isle jumper dress.

I bought myself two pairs of Converse recently. DD is not impressed.
They are the first new shoes I've bought myself in about 2 years, and one pair is for work!

Lelly Kelly's are not good generally but these boots are vile to the extreme.

There has been another thread on this boot just recently.

Actually I disagree, I think this is mildly sexualising the very young girls for whom it is sized. Less so for older girls (ie 9 upwards) but if I saw a 3 or 4 year old in these it would leap out as being really odd and inappropriate. It is most definitely not 'letting girls be girls' to sell them clothes that are specifically designed to be miniature versions of adult clothes, imho. Oh, and this was the accompanying blurb that came with the boots on the JL website:-

'These knee high patent boots feature the branded logo, crystal detailing around the shin and ankle and a very small heel. They also come with additional straps so you can change the look of them, depending on your outfit or preference. Tuck jeans into them or team with an A-line skirt for a relaxed, modern look'.

'These Lelli Kellly shoes come complete with a free handbag shaped make-up palette (while stocks last) - perfect for completing your new outfit'

I can just see DD (nearly 4), finishing her 'relaxed modern look' with a big old slick of Lelli kelli lipgloss.

Yuk Yuk and a bit more Yuk.