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.

A suitable MN response would be someone jumping on and saying 'this is why generally I tend to wear hiking boots' or some other such rubbish.

I was totally on Carrie's side in that episode. The friend (Kyra) came across very badly

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

But in that episode it was clear that Carrie’s friend could have afforded to do so, but chose instead to expect expensive presents and lecture Carrie on her “selfish “ lifestyle.