Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Where Do Babies Come From, Mom... | Re: The Manufactured Martyrdom... »

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

My Halloween Dream of Babies Dressed as Hookers is One (Squishy) Step Closer to Reality

posted by on September 10 at 9:24 AM


From King 5:

Two moms from Bellevue have launched a business that sells baby high heels. The crib shoes are only made for children up to 6 months old, and the heel is squishy for safety reasons. They could very well possibly be the smallest stilettos ever.

As King 5 mentions, the makers of “Heelarious” shoes “admit some have criticized them, saying heels, even fake ones, are inappropriate for babies. But they insist it’s all meant to be in good fun.”

And as I must add, watching a 6-months-or-less baby rolling around in a pair of suckle-me pumps—perhaps with a wig?—would be the funniest thing in the world.

(But maybe that’s why I should only have dogs, not babies.)

RSS icon Comments


This opens a new delightful avenue for fetishists.

Posted by Ziggity | September 10, 2008 9:22 AM

It reminds me of when Abercrombie and Fitch tried pitching thong underwear to little girls a few years ago. They caught hell for that. Deservedly so.

Posted by lark | September 10, 2008 9:25 AM

I think this is the most repulsive item I've seen for babies in a long, long time. One would assume, given my obsession with heels, that I would be the target market, but frankly this target market is appalled.

It is not often you'll catch me denigrating Eastsiders, but in this instance all I can say is "fucking Bellevue moms"...

Posted by PopTart | September 10, 2008 9:29 AM

Yay, now I can dress my baby in hilariously grown up outfits, just like I dress my dog in hilariously human outfits.

Posted by Carollani | September 10, 2008 9:31 AM

officially creeped out

Posted by CommonKnowledge | September 10, 2008 9:32 AM

It's cute, hookers don't have anything to do with it, unless you think any female in heels will have sex with you for money.

Except for the fact that most people have better things to spend their money on, why the hell not put a baby in squishy heels?

Posted by EmmiG | September 10, 2008 9:39 AM

Yeah, this is a little weird, but not weirder than any other things parents do.

#6 makes some good points about assumptions we apparently make about women who wear high heels.

Posted by Gloria | September 10, 2008 9:42 AM

I'm kinda with EmmiG at 6. It would be different if they were made for toddlers and kids who could actually walk around in them, but baby booties with heels don't seem that horrific.

Also, it's true that not all women in high heels are hookers, but anyone dressing up as a hooker for Halloween must wear heels. (Trust me, I know.)

Posted by David Schmader | September 10, 2008 9:44 AM

I'm with 5. Fucking creeeeeeeppy.

Posted by Mike in MO | September 10, 2008 9:50 AM

Those shoes are just plain old ugly.

Posted by keshmeshi | September 10, 2008 9:50 AM

exceptionally gross on so many levels. i hope i never come across these in public, because i'm sure a case of aggravated assault would follow.

Posted by tiffany | September 10, 2008 10:03 AM

@6 & @7 Yeah, geez I wear heels and I'd have sex for free.

Still, I don't like these. It's purely vanity for the parents. But, then again these days having a kid is vanity for the parents so what else is new. Babies, the new fashion accessory!

Posted by PopTart | September 10, 2008 10:04 AM

Word @4.....Maybe my relatives are right about liberals not having a sense of humor.

Reminds me of the Barbie doll debate where girls are alleged to be traumatized by the doll while ignoring the fact that their grandmothers had buttondolls yet didn't grow up thinking they had to be better buttons.

BTW: my own politics are way way left of center

Posted by Hartiepie | September 10, 2008 10:10 AM

@ 12

the real problem is the parent's questionable judgment. this is taking gender roles to a whole new extreme.

Posted by tiffany | September 10, 2008 10:10 AM

Maybe it's just because I can't see anybody getting these and putting them on their baby as anything but a joke, but, I don't see what the big deal is with these. They're sort of funny -- not the kind of funny, I really care about, but they are just a joke.

Now, people dressing their three year olds like little yuppies in little jean skirts and knee high boots with fashionable haircuts is completely retarded. That is taking gender roles to an extreme. FYI, I see this all the time in Chicago.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 10, 2008 10:16 AM

@12, all cute baby clothes are just for the vanity of the parents, why the hell not have something for the vanity of the parents? The baby doesn't care either way, so if a parent had to choose between a regular pair of booties and a pair of squishy heels and they like the squishy heels more, who cares?

Unless you are having a baby just so you can put squishy heels on it, it's not the same thing as treating a baby like a "fashion accessory"

Posted by EmmiG | September 10, 2008 10:21 AM

According to my copy of The 2008 Annotated Guide to the Internet, this is old news. It was news back in June, written about here, for example.

Posted by kris | September 10, 2008 10:34 AM

These are totally bizarre and kind of gross, but prior to about the late 18th century, children were always dressed like tiny adults (although adults themselves dressed mostly in a less revealing fashion).

Posted by Abby | September 10, 2008 10:34 AM

How can a baby girl evoke a streetwalker if she can't even walk?

@18: Less revealing? Have you seen some of those necklines?

Posted by Gloria | September 10, 2008 10:38 AM


the difference is they wern't dressed as adults who wore pink sparkly platforms that made others inclined to vomit.

Posted by tarot psychiatry | September 10, 2008 10:40 AM

@16 This seems like a weird thing to be passionate about, but OK, parents can do whatever the fuck they want. I have a son so he won't be sporting heels and I suspect my friends with girls will also say no thanks to this, but sure if you actually think this is cute, then more power to you.

However, if you don't believe that babies are the newest fashion accessory then you obviously don't read magazines or watch television. Why don't you flip through the pages of the latest issue of People magazine (The one with Palin and her baby on the cover) and get back to me on it.

Posted by PopTart | September 10, 2008 10:42 AM

@ 19

the plunging necklines are nothing in comparison to the paris hilton wannabes that have become the fashion norm.

Posted by tiffany | September 10, 2008 10:43 AM

@19: "Mostly" is a wonderful word, because I can be totally vague and still be somewhat right. And skirts were a lot longer. And men were wearing heels. That has nothing to do with anything, I'd just like to see it today.

@20: but that doesn't mean that dressing kids like adults is some invention of our time. It's rather archaic, actually.

Posted by Abby | September 10, 2008 10:43 AM


They might be, they might not be, I stay away from that type of news story because it's all bullshit and I have better things to worry about--I'm just saying that putting squishy heels on a baby isn't the same thing as making the baby a fashion accessory, so there's no point in being disgusted or shocked or anything.

If there was women who were having kids just to buy them cute clothes, then I could understand the reaction, but not to the cute clothes themselves.

Posted by EmmiG | September 10, 2008 10:53 AM

@17 --shut up. If people didn't read it then, it is new to them now. SLOG doesn't exist only to report things first.

Posted by Hartiepie | September 10, 2008 11:16 AM

“Little girls can get a jump start on their strut and be top-models-in-training before they leave the crib”
- Bobbi Thomas

The Today Show

this is a quote taken directly from the company's website. ha. ha. ha.

Posted by tiffany | September 10, 2008 11:27 AM

They're just getting the "prosti-tots" demographic started a little early, that's all!

Posted by scharrera | September 10, 2008 12:30 PM

#21 ' i have a son so he won't be sporting heels'. i suppose that means that you won't be buying heels for your son to wear. but why not ? suppose he wants to? have i ever told you about the three year old who insisted on playing dorothy in classroom dressup play of the wizard of oz? they tried to get him to wear the tin man because they figured he merely had a predilection for shiny things.but he'd only wear the tin man clothes underneath the dorothy pinafore and red shoes.
like schmader i would consider putting these on my baby..and like schmader , maybe it's best i don't have one.

Posted by reverend dr dj riz | September 10, 2008 1:13 PM

These shoes suck.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | September 10, 2008 1:49 PM

I think that they are HOT!!! Where can I get more pics?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | September 10, 2008 2:12 PM

@28 I was wondering if someone was going to call me on that. I won't be putting heels on my son, but if he wants to wear heels that's totally fine by me. He likes to try my shoes on, but so far his preference is my flats...

Posted by PopTart | September 10, 2008 2:27 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.