Should she have paid for Carrie’s shoes?

[AllyBama]

Lighthearted obviously and I know I’m being unreasonable for doing an AIBU for a Sex And The City episode but it was the on in the house in the background today and it was like they took the storyline right out of a mumsnet classic! You don’t need to have watched the series to weigh in.

It was the episode where Carrie goes to a baby shower or kids party or something in $475 Manolo Blahnik shoes and is asked (with everyone) to remove them at the door. At the end of the night, the shoes are gone, ostensibly nicked. After some deliberation,

Carrie comes to the conclusion that the homeowner who asked her to remove her shoes should replace them. Carrie is ‘shoe shamed’ - the party thrower initially rebuffs the idea of reimbursement and says she shouldn’t have worn such extravagant shoes to a party and they shouldn’t have to fund her lifestyle.

So
YABU: The party thrower was right, Carrie chose to wear such an over the top shoe to a baby shower, she shouldn’t have to replace them
YANBU: Carrie is right, while the shoe was an extravagant choice, it was never Carrie’s choice to remove them and the homeowner should replace them.

@Thewindwhispers

Carrie should have known thatnitnis basic god manners an hygiene to remove shoes at the door, and should have planned for that. But, having stupidly worn such expensive shoes, she should have asked for borrow a plastic bag and kept them with her.

Yes I bet you do this at the adult parties you attend .

Is it good manners to not reimburse a friend when their possessions were stolen from your home where you were asked to remove shoes - which was clearly unexpected?

I don't know why I'm getting so involved in a 20 year old episode of a tv show that clearly so many of you that are commenting on haven't even watched!

Carrie’s a dick.

I hope that friend didn't buy Carrie a wedding present when she subsequently got married

As PPs say, Carrie was always U!

Also with wedding presents you can spend what you can spend what you can afford. It's not like the host didn't offer to reimburse her up to a point, but maybe she just didn't have $475 to spare?

@Crunchymum hahah this is what I was going to say. Think this is the only episode ever where I agree with Carrie.

Of course she should have paid for my shoes! Sorry, how can I not post on this thread 🤣🤣

@AnnaDelvorkina

Carrie is always U.

That.

They did well to get so many series out of a premise that had a self involved fruit loop for a protagonist.

@vitahelp eh?! She’s got loads of shoes so doesn’t matter if a pair get stolen? What have you got a lot of? Would you fine with some of it getting stolen because you’ve lots more and it’s not your only? Ffs

@Crunchymum

This was about the only time, in the entire series, that Carrie wasn't an unreasonable cunt

So true! They were all truly AWFUL characters. Entitled, selfish, self-obsessed nightmares. I can't believe I not only watched, but enjoyed, the entire run of seasons of SATC now, but then again, 'Friends' is the same. I catch a bit of that now and again, by accident, and realise all those characters annoy the shit out of me, too.

If I remember rightly Carrie responded by saying that she was getting married to herself and listed a pair of Manolo Blahnik shoes as the gift preference. The friend is then supposed to have seen the error of her ways and I think the episode ends with a shiny new shoebox on carries doorstep.

There is a deeper message in it somewhere but I still think Carrie is a massive twat and if you choose to wear ridiculously expensive clothing, shoes, handbags etc anywhere then you do run the risk of them becoming damaged or stolen.

A kid could have just as easily spilt juice on them.

But I'm probably being harsh because I can't stand her

I remember the episode, I never thought the homeowner should have replaced the shoes, she didn't steal them

Carrie is so entitled , remy when she wanted Charlotte to give her a deposit for her flat when she'd spent thousands of shows and was skint? Outrageous!!

@ChiefWiggumsBoy one does not put Manolo Blahniks into a plastic bag!

I personally think Carrie should have shouldered some responsibility (40-50% at least?) but I see I'm mostly alone in thinking this

@MotherofAutism
You sure are! 😊
Thankfully.

@MrsPelligrinoPetrichor

I remember the episode, I never thought the homeowner should have replaced the shoes, she didn't steal them

Carrie is so entitled , remy when she wanted Charlotte to give her a deposit for her flat when she'd spent thousands of shows and was skint? Outrageous!!

So many typos, sorry

Carrie should have known thatnitnis basic god manners an hygiene to remove shoes at the door, and should have planned for that.

This is a cultural practice that varies from place to place. It still doesn't happen in the rural place I grew up and didn't happen in the large city I went to university in in the late 80s/early 90s (and I shared a flat then with European students who wore shoes inside). It started happening in my middle class British world in the late 90s/early 00s, around the time SATC was being filmed.

In the programme Carrie had dressed up for an adult social event and that includes wearing smart shoes. If not wearing shoes inside was a universal practice that everyone followed then the episode would never have been made, it would have made no sense that Carrie wouldn't know the rules.

The homeowners outbid Billy Joel for a house in the Hamptons.

@BrightYellowDaffodil

I’ve never forgotten this episode, the patronising response of Carrie’s “friend” grated like fuck then and it still does. Probably because it was meant to highlight how some (disclaimer: not all, before you flame me) parents decide that they’ve had an epiphany once they had a child and to them nothing is as important as parenthood/children. Caring about anything else is just shallow and meaningless.

I loved the ending of that episode

Absolutely this. I’ve never forgotten that epi either. The very smug judgmental mother valuing her choices over Carrie’s.

And remember! Carrie was expected to buy a very expensive present for the baby shower. But expecting someone to spend $400 on a gift for a baby, while judging them for wearing $400 shoes - I think it was the point of that episode- the hypocrisy!!

The one episode where I 100% agreed with Carrie!

She absolutely should’ve replaced the shoes. She was made to remove them and in doing so, the woman became liable for anything that happened to them whilst on her premises.

The main point of this episode is where the friend says she has a real life, as opposed to carrie who doesn't (because carrie doesn't have children). Also she was OK to pay for the shoes (eventually) until she realised the price, then questioned her life choices.

100% carrie is in the right in this episode

@smallandimperfectlyformed

As soon as I saw the title I remembered the episode! Yes, she should have paid for the shoes and she was bloody judgemental about Carrie's life choices. I was team Carrie all the way

Me too!

Interesting voting! Yeah I think it’s key actually that at the start of the episode, Carrie is seen at multiple shops, going through multiple registries for baby showers, weddings, engagements etc, illustrating how much coin she spends on her friends and their ‘lifestyle choices’.
Re: the legalities. Miranda said that legally, the party thrower was liable for the shoes.

I agree that Carrie should have probably kept her shoes with her but I think she had a tiny purse that couldn’t have fit the shoes in it and then there’s a whole other conversation/thread about being made to unwillingly remove your shoes in someone else’s house. It would have been a ‘thing’ if she had been seen to be carrying Manolos around the party all night. Her only choice would have been to leave and then she would have looked like a dick for doing that.

So I think her hand (feet?) was a bit forced here and she had every right to ask the home owner to replace them, especially considering how much Carrie would have spent on her over the years.

@CooooCoooo

If the "friend" was insisting Carrie removed her shoes then friend should have provided a safe place to put the shoes.

Personally, if I was Carrie, I would have carried the shoes around with me knowing how expensive they were but it's understandable to presume they'll be safe where the homeowner tells you to put them.

And put them where? A special locked cupboard for shoes that only the busy host has the key for?

Carrie - it's always about Carrie - was out of line asking the friend to pay and the friend was right not to foot the bill but I never liked her judgment.

@ChiefWiggumsBoy Yes I'm serious, I couldn't afford to replace a friends expensive shoes right now and I'm not even that skint!