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?

I think that I have figured out something, more about me than the boots. I am incapable of seeing any footwear as sexy or sexual, not unless it's a mock phallus, maybe . Stilletto heels, for instance, just scream PAINFUL and IMPRACTICAL to me (and COLD, and ugly because of all the preceding). But I get the impression that for a lot of women footwear is very much a social and sexual advertisement, and that explains many of reactions on this thread.

I will keep out of footwear related threads in future, methinks.

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.

What, no trainers?

Can she jump in puddles, climb trees and run about in her boots?

Chaos - hello! Sorry I hope you didn't think I stole your thunder. Off to read YOUR thread now!

My DD can climb and run about better in her boots than he can in wellies. Granted wellies are best for puddle splashing.

They're rank and they do look hookerish. Very sorry if that offends but they are like hooker-lite boots. Girls of this demographic do not need heels combined with patent leather/sparkly stones/knee-high.

FWIW I think there is a vast difference between knee high boots that look like they are intended for splashing in puddles and these knee high boots that look like they belong on a girl fifteen years older.

Nonononono, it's all fine.

I appreciate the validation.

I have more of a problem with the heel than anything, but saying that I had to get my eldest (she was 7 last week) shoes from Clarks on Sunday. She is big for her age and has gone into a size 2G. They had 2 pairs on which came in her width and both had heels. They aren't massive heels, but still not needed for school shoes.

When I asked why they would put a heel on the assistant said it was to do with balance. I struggled not to say "bollocks". If this was the case all shoes would have a heel wouldn't they?

There's just no need.

I think, although I could be wrong of course, that a slight heel is better than a completely flat shoe (such as ballet flats). So it's possible that the Clarks woman wasn't talking bollocks.

A quick Google reveals that I am, indeed, talking bollocks. Sorry

In my defence, slip ons are rubbish for small feet. But then we all knew that anyway, didn't we.

seeker it is possible to have specific clothes for smarter occassions.Life isn't always about running about and jumping in puddles.

those lelli kelli boots are hideous.

my almost 2yr old has boots that arent wellies. They keep her feet warm, are very supportive and look good with anything. they are her main shoes.

all of my girls have boots as their winter shoes when they are walking till around age 4, when they have to have shoes for school.

Seeker - she can do anything she wants in those boots (as I said they are Goretex so waterproof) which is why she doesn't need any other shoes. They are definitely not LK slapper-in-training boots. They have a flat/shaped sole like pretty much any other shoes available for girls her age so will not impede any tree climbing, and trainers in my view are not all that practical for jumping in puddles etc as she will def get wet feet (PFB emoticon).
I'm hoping they will see her through till March...