Here we go again. Its just words. They could call it "ugly bear gloves" and it wouldn't make a difference to what the product actually was. But I bet there are going to be a ton of responses of "Oh my god. They shouldn't call it that." I am so tired of people who think that what something is called changes the object itself in some way.

Okay, the fact these shoes were bought for a 7 year-old is bad enough. Never mind they look horrifying in and of themselves. I love boots, but I wouldn't touch these...things with a 10-foot pole. Ew.

@qwerty017: Huh? Did you read the testimonial? While I figure it is just a gag, the mental image of a seven year old child in that sears my mind.

@SabyneWired: I will give you that. I don't know anybody that would look good in shoes like those.

@pinkpuppet: I thought it could be a gag, or someone accidentally posting a review to the wrong product. I hope.

@pinkpuppet: Yep. I read the testimonial. Don't know why anyone would buy shoes like that. Super models couldn't even pull of shoes like that and still look good. But Zappos does have good service from what I've heard.

Looks like this might be a gag or mistake since Zappos doesn't even sell them in kid sizes. [www.zappos.com]
Also, Promiscuous is the brand.

These are adult women's shoes - the smallest size is a 5, which is small but not small enough for any 7-year-old I know. Maybe she meant 17-year-old and mistyped.

Not that a 17-year-old should wear these, but it's not as bad as a 7-year-old.

@qwerty017: Yeah. I'm hoping this review was either a goof that was posted to the wrong product or a fake. Without knowing what site it supposedly came from, I can't tell. I looked at the shoe's page on Zappos, but this review wasn't there.

I think the shoes themselves would be cute if they lowered the heel slightly and made it look overall less skanky. Seriously, I'd be embarrassed to wear those.

Ugh, anyone else get the feeling these were bought by one of those pageant mamas for her little princess? *twitch*

@SabyneWired: You have to look in the Google Cache to see the review. [209.85.173.132]

@Luckwouldhaveit: Oh, I hope so. Still a little creepy that a mother would buy these for a daughter no matter what her age is.

You're all forgetting one thing. As consumerist readers, you should know that some sites have been caught for people writing fake reviews. Who's to say this wasn't somebody just getting paid to review products they never even bought, etc.?

@qwerty017: The argument isn't that changing the name changes the object, but rather that changing the name changes the culture. People find the names and marketing objectionable because they normalize objectionable values.

I am guessing either a mistake or a prank. But nobody should be wearing those shoes for a variety of reasons.

I showed those horrible boots to my 12 year old and asked what SHE though. She laughed and said "Mom, those are gross, nobody would really wear them!" but still, the advertising is puke inducing.

@qwerty017: Ah, thanks qwerty. I can see it now. :)

Also, it seems the shoes are a smidge better when viewed in the pewter color. The overall design is still wrecky and skanky, but somehow the silver makes them look a tiny bit prettier.

@Luckwouldhaveit: That's what I was thinking. That 7 year old would have to have awfully big feet to wear these.

Ironically, my cross-dressing, eight-year-old tranny nephew who's exploring BDSM? Thought they were fabulous!
(joke, obv)

@qwerty017: yeah, it's either a typo or a joke. the smallest size available for that show is women's 5, definitely too much for the average young kid.

@qwerty017:You definitely heard right. If you ever have the urge to buy shoes on the internet, buy from them. The product quality and ridiculously good customer service justifies their prices easily.

@JessiesMind: How do you know it was the mother?

Er well, a joke or not, it's not far off. I used to work in an elementary school "in the ghett-oooooo." They used to send their little girls to picture day in stilettos and clothing I'd be fired for wearing to school.

If that weren't bad enough, they'd send their girls to TRACK DAY with everything from sandals to heels. And don't think that it was because they forgot- they'd ATTEND track day and still not GET IT. We eventually had a selection of "loaner" shoes so that they'd not break an ankle or something.

/wishes she were kidding

@qwerty017: you don't think the "target market" has anything to do with a product? If Viagra was suddenly marketed to 7-year-olds I'm sure we'd not be too okay with that. But it certainly wouldn't change the product itself, would it?

It's not the title itself ("A rose by any other name..."), it's the implications of the name and the market that they are geared towards.

/extreme example, but it works
//meh

@qwerty017: Good find. Changes everything.

So...they have a 7 year old prostitute? They must be so proud.

@Luckwouldhaveit: Someone biologically and legally old enough to be sexually active shouldn't wear sexy clothes?

@Luckwouldhaveit: That was my first impression: that she had meant to type 17 but missed a key.

It wouldn't be unheard of for a girl that age to like something that style.

@Pithlit: Pretty sure it got posted to the wrong product. Happens reasonably often on Zappos.

I think what might be more ironic than all of this is the fact that after praising the boots in the review, she still gave the product a 3 star rating... so, something was messed up about them... maybe the fact that they didn't fit her **7 year old.

Promiscuous is the brand name, all the shoes have the same spike-heeled profile, and they have style names like Delicious, Sweetie, Hottie, Sensual, Kissable, etc. Not kids' shoes.

I think the mistake is a typo in the age of the gift recipient, probably should be 17 or 27. The reviewer sounds sincere, not salacious. She put some thought into writing that review and she plays it straight all the way. She rated comfort only one star and skirted round the issue in the review, mentioning only Zappos service and the shoe's appearance. That doesn't sound like a prankster, it sounds like someone who was deliberately trying to focus on positive points without stressing the negative.

I think they're kind of fugly shoes for a mom to choose for a 17- or 27-year old daughter, but at least that makes more sense, and no one can argue someone else's taste. I'm sure they weren't bought for a 7-year old.