Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think friend was justified in not lending clothes?

63 replies

INeedACheeseSlicer · 15/09/2015 12:11

Recently met up with friends and their preschool DC for a day out.
Friend A's son is potty training currently. (Friend B's son, and my own Dd have been trained over a year - this is relevant!)
Friend A's son had 3 accidents needing a change of clothes before lunch. Then after lunch, B's son wet himself, and B didn't have any spare clothes. B asked A if she had any spares, and she said she only had one set left, so wanted to keep them in case her Ds had another accident (bearing in mind he'd had 3 already). B was v taken aback and a bit pissed off.
Then I managed to find an old pair of spare knickers and blue flowery leggings of Dd's that I must have been carrying around crumpled at the bottom of my bag for the past year and offered those.
B refused them because they were for girls and she wouldn't ever do that to her DS. She said A should take them "just in case" and lend her (B) her boy's clothes. A wasn't keen, and said she'd rather just keep her own clothes.

B went home early as her son had no clothes to wear, and later posted a PA Facebook status about knowing who your real friends are.

I reckon A was justified in hanging on to her Ds's clothes.
But I don't think a 3 year old will be that scarred by wearing some flowery leggings for an afternoon, so I think one of them should have taken them, rather than B having to go home, so I think if I had been A I would have just taken them to keep the peace!

OP posts:
MangoBiscuit · 15/09/2015 12:14

B should have taken them, thanked you, and remembered to take spares for her own child next time. Of course A WNBU to not want to hand out her last change of clothes whilst her DC is potty training.

MintyChops · 15/09/2015 12:15

Friend B was an idiot. Friend A was perfectly right.

Rivercam · 15/09/2015 12:18

I feel a bit on the fence on this. I can understand why A wanted to keep the clothes, but also why B asked a for them. However, it was a bit rude to refuse your clothes, and th expect the other boy to wear them.

I always carried a spare change of clothes in the car when mine were little, so if any accidents did happen (also accidents like falling in puddles, spilling food etc), I had a change of clothes.

MyFavouriteClintonisGeorge · 15/09/2015 12:19

So B had not brought any spare clothes with her, and refused to put her son in the clothes you offered, but nevertheless this is all A's fault? Hmn.

And if girls' clothes were not suitable for her DS, how come they were suitable for A's? It seems very odd that the mother who did come prepared should have to take the girls' clothes and not the woman who was unprepared.

That plus the childish Facebook status suggests to me B is to be avoided. A did nothing wrong.

DoJo · 15/09/2015 12:21

I agree - Friend A was well-prepared so why should she have to get into a three way loan situation to appease the preciousness of friend B? B didn't have to go home - she chose to, and friend A shouldn't have felt obliged to pander to her. Why is friend B's son incapable of wearing girls' clothes yet she is able to insist that friend A's son should?

lynniep · 15/09/2015 12:21

I'm with team A :)

BikeRunSki · 15/09/2015 12:22

B was being daft.

A was well prepared.

I have been known to accept pink leggings from a friend when ds had a uncharacteristic accident a year or so after potty training. He didn't care.

TelephoneIgnoringMachine · 15/09/2015 12:24

A was inadequately prepared. Perhaps next time she'll think to take enough for the whole day instead of assuming others will supply the deficit.

Koalafications · 15/09/2015 12:25

Ridiculous behaviour from friend B. She should be more prepared.

Koalafications · 15/09/2015 12:26

Do you mean 'B' telephone?

TelephoneIgnoringMachine · 15/09/2015 12:26

Sorry, should, have said, B was inadequately prepared. You take your own stuff, or deal with the consequences.

TheOddity · 15/09/2015 12:26

Friend B unreasonable. Age 2 after a soaking on the beach my good friend lent DS her DD's bright pink jumpsuit waterproof and we were both just glad he was dry and warm. Can't imagine not putting my child in any dry clothes offered when I forget to bring my own.

CocktailQueen · 15/09/2015 12:28

Friend A sensible and justified.

Friend B less well prepared and unreasonable - why OK for friend A's son to wear girl's clothes if not OK for hers?? Very unkeen on PA FB update. FFS. Unfriend just for that!

TheWitTank · 15/09/2015 12:29

I would have lent my friend the clothes, but then I think she is perfectly justified on keeping them if she wanted to, she has a valid reason. Friend B was a bit of a knob not taking the offered leggings though. I remember my son wearing the odd pair of leggings and "girl" tops when he had accidents or spillages at that age. He was rather taken with his sisters 'jeggings' at one stage as they fit in his wellie holes a treat!

PennyHasNoSurname · 15/09/2015 12:31

B is a twit for refusing the offer of clean dry clothes for her son.

I really would not have time for that sort of nonsense. I have a DD and a DS and would happily shove each in the others clothing if needed and in an emergency. In fact, I think DS wpuld prefer bright flowers trousers to the boring grey or navy he is usually in.

TheWanderingUterus · 15/09/2015 12:32

I think B should have taken the clothes you offered. A is perfectly right to want to hang onto their own clothes for their DS, because they would have the additional issue of having to return your clothes and get their clothes back from B later on. In that situation if I had been A I would have refused too, there was a viable alternative that B should have taken.

B is 100% in the wrong for a)going home rather than taking the offered clothes b)posting a PA status on FB and C)being so hung up on gendered clothing. B should have taken them to keep the peace.

toomuchtooold · 15/09/2015 12:32

I'm team A. It's not like A's son having an accident was some distant possibility - it was pretty inevitable it was going to happen again. And if I was A, I would have been accommodating if there had been some good reason why it was easier for me to take the spare girly clothes (eg if they were too small for B's boy but the right size for mine) but I'd have been right p'd off that my kid was simply supposed to wear stuff that B had turned the nose up at.

BlackeyedSusan · 15/09/2015 12:33

friend a is justified in keeping the clothes (though probably should wait a bit longer for potty training as he does not sound ready)

friend b is being stupid. take your own clothes next time.

SoupDragon · 15/09/2015 12:34

B is an idiot.

Duckdeamon · 15/09/2015 12:34

B has been a rude, gender stereotyping and FB attention seeing knob.

Sunshineandsilverbirch · 15/09/2015 12:37

Mintyy summed it up beautifully.

B is responsible for clothing her own child. Not anyone else.

At 3 yo surely it's only sensible to carry a spare set of clothes. It's not just accidents - my two were really excellent at finding puddles to sit in or mud to roll in. Grin

KevinAndMe · 15/09/2015 12:38

A was right.
B was bloody rude both to you and to A.
As for you thinking that, if you had been A, you would have said yes, taken the flowery leggings and given your clothes to B... you really need to be much more assertivce and not want to please everyone all the time.

Janeymoo50 · 15/09/2015 12:43

B was being stupid, and even more stupid for posting on FB just hours later!!

RiverTam · 15/09/2015 12:46

Team A!

Aeroflotgirl · 15/09/2015 12:48

I am with A, she needed those clothes, her ds had wet 3 times already and will possibly wet again. They are her ds clothes for her ds. B should have taken your clothes, thanked you, and made a note to carry spares next time. B should stop like an entitled Madame.