Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

13 replies

Kytti · 19/10/2011 18:41

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. [hangry]

OP posts:
squeakyfreakytoy · 19/10/2011 18:42

Have you seen the price of trainers Grin..

worraliberty · 19/10/2011 18:43

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 · 19/10/2011 18:43

are you actually being serious?

piratecaaaaaaaaaghhht · 19/10/2011 18:44

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

usualsuspect · 19/10/2011 18:45

My Ds has never owned a pair of actual shoes

He wears his non tatty VANs for best

Kytti · 19/10/2011 18:51

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

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

OP posts:
colken · 19/10/2011 19:36

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 · 19/10/2011 19:40

My ds wore converse for school

Blu · 19/10/2011 19:41

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 · 19/10/2011 19:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Irishchic · 19/10/2011 19:45

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

toboldlygo · 19/10/2011 19:50

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 · 19/10/2011 19:51

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

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread