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?

Has BHS signed up to the Let Girls be Girls campaign? Went in there yesterday with my DDs and the horror I've linked to wasn't even the worst item on offer.

Why do 3 year olds need boots that aren't wellies anyway?

The First Lady -
My seven year old is tall and wears age 8-9 clothing. That dress would fit her. As would the shoes that are shown on the same page.
www.bhs.co.uk/mall/productpage.cfm/bhsstore/112614
I'm really rather horrified tbh.

I really can't put a finger on why, but I find myself feeling increasingly uncomfortable with people likening children's clothing to some kind of hooker uniform.

If you don't like the boots (and as others have said already, I can't imagine an adult woman wanting these - whatever her profession), don't buy them.

I cannot say that i like these boots, or think they are suitable for children. But surely it is your own opinion, your own view of what a hooker is that determines whether or not these are 'hooker' shoes? and surely it is that attitude which needs to change, rather than whether or not these boots are suitable? I say that because i work not too far from a red light district, and have frequented clubs and bars in the past not too far from said district, and hooker do not necessarily where these type of boots, they in fact where all sorts of clothing that are not necessarily 'hooker' clothing and vice versa, plenty of girls where much more provocative clothing than these boots. The fact that people have an image of hookers that resemble boots like these bothers me a bit.

That does not mean they are nice boots, but that is taste, as said by others. I would not let my child aged 4 wear black shoes or black clothes other than for school, regardless of the style.

yy, Pavlov.

If I was a protitute I'd be offended by the insinuation that I'd wear boots wth diamante adornments

I think I'm begininning to put a finger on why I dislike all this Girls be Girls thing. There seems to me an underlying current of thought among many of it's supporters, which is that certain clothing indicates that you (whether you're 7 or 37) are sexually available. This is utter bollocks.

Now, if mothers with dds were finding it impossible to buy clothing in which a girl could climb a tree, they'd have a point.

I don't think they're that bad. Crass, overly expensive, bad taste and not something I would ever buy but I've seen worse.

it' supporters?
begininning?

I wouldn't buy the items linked but I do have an issue with them. My girls would love them! If any of their friends were to start prancing about in heels, or what look like heels, strapless dresses and the like then the whining from mine would be unbearable. So thats my issue really. My daughters won't be happy with sparkly flat party shoes if all their school friends are wearing these.

www.next.co.uk/shopping/girls/shoes/5/5

I'm quite happy for them to wear trendy clothes but age appropriate - I don't think these are.

As I said, why do little girls need boots that aren't wellies?

For the same reasons women like them I guess, seeker. For when it's cold but you're not traipsing about in mud enough to justify anything fully waterproof, and you don't want your feet sweating away in wellies.

Having said that boys seem to manage without leather boots. I don't think anyone really needs them. But then there are a lot of things we don't actually need.

You know, in a way I think these boots are better than other flimsy offerings, particularly if you're (as an 8yo) wearing a skirt. I bet you could climb a tree in them - as long as you weren't too precious about those sparkly diamantes.

Ew, just followed thefirstlady link to bhs strapless cocktail dress - for an 8-9 year old!!!! jeez, my daughters 5 and in 6-7 already, this will be the size clothes shes wearing when she's 6 - who could possibly want their daughter to wear something as tarty and overtly sexual as this - i wouldn't even want to see a 16 yr old in it. horrid.

and the boots are vile too.

judgement over, now need to breathe...

Hello TheBolter, great minds think alike.

Seeker I've got my 4yo boots, they are goretex so pretty much as waterproof as wellies and she won't be getting any other "not-school" shoes, so that's why my little girl needs boots.

The shop I got them from sold the Lelli Kelly horrors that started the thread and I'm thrilled to inform you they also come in scarlet. Pretty Woman, anyone?

Horrid.

I didn't mind Lelli Kellis when they first came out - just little girl's shoes and boots covered in sparkles and sequins. No problem - very much aimed at little girls. But I hate the whole heels and thigh highs, etc that are available now - not just Lelli Kelly but many brands.

My DD is 8y now and in a size 2 for boots so she is really starting to hit much more grown up styles and I hate it. Thank goodness for our loca independent children's shop shop - they still have the LKs, etc but also a much wder range of normal styles too.

I got DD a pair of black waterproof boots from there recently - a new range of Startrite boots called Aquarite - fully waterproog. Still not cheap though!

have always bought my DD proper boots in addition to wellies. Generally wellies are not properly fitted, have poor soles, little ankle support and make her feet sweat. Decent boots get round this.

DD has wellis for playing in rain,, walking boots for walking properly esp if damp or muddy, and boots for wearing with her decent clothes when we are going out raher than going to play.

Also wellies don't keep your feet warm either.

What is the problem with a slight heel? I bought DD boots because they were a far superior choice to her ordinary school shoes for walking down country lane (to school) in the snow. They happen to have a small heel which has been terrific in that they can double as riding boots.

My hunter's wellies have a slight heel and I certainly don't feel that that makes them in any way "sexy".

ragged at three they shouldn't have heels. In fact til they are adults really as it can stunt their calve muscles from developing properly.

Maybe I am fooled by the camera angle, but the heel looks tiny! You wouldn't notice it at all if the shoe were styled differently -- it'd be no more of a heel than the standard boy's shoe.

I guess the age thing is more an issue for OP & her DDs, Flying. DD didn't get into size 9 shoes until she was 7yo, so I look at those boots as something my 7yo might be able to wear.

Flying if that was the objection, I would understand.

But they're not - instead everyone seems to be getting worked up about them because they look like "hooker" boots. Because as we all know, knee high boots with sparkly bits and a small heel are a sure fire indication that the wearer is a prostitute

I wouldn't say they are hookers boots, just boots for adults Theyn are fashion shoes and kids shouldn't be interested in fashion.

Don't get why people want to make children look like grown ups, I want mine yo be as young as long aspossible.

They arent very nice, but I would call them overtly sexual.

And that is the problem with the Let girls be girls campaign to a certain extent.

There is a difference of taste in most people. What is ok for one person isnt ok for another.

I imagine if you contacted JL about this they would be surprised they were felt to be sexualised boots.

wouldn't

I do however have a problem with BHS strapless cocktail dress for 8-9 year olds. Sigh.

these are pretty hideous and I wouldn't buy them in a million years, but I don't think all Lelli Kelly's are nasty, DD has some pretty canvas mary jane shoes with beads on them that MIL bought her, hideously over-priced but they have worn really well and look cute IMO