Would you consider this an outfit or pajamas?

CleoKitty

Is this something that you'd consider an acceptable outfit for a baby to wear out in public or are they pajamas in your opinion?

 

 

And what about this? Does it make a difference whether or not they have feet?

 

I tend to think that feet = pajamas and no feet = outfit.  

penguingrrl

I personally think of any one piece outfit as pj's.

AZ_Erica

For a baby I guess I could go either way, but I don't mind things like sleep and play's for babies in public.  I personally like the one without feet better.

eclaires

I agree w/ you.  Feet = pjs.  No feet =/= pjs.

pincushion

ditto eclaires.

AnneUCSB

Agreed...

Feet= PJs (IMO, acceptable in public if baby is under 3 months)

No Feet= Outift and totally adorable in public ?

kjlrs

feet DEFINITELY equals PJs.

 

no feet could go either way. i have a no feet romper that i bought for DD that i sort of consider PJs but am not sure if that was the intent of it or not.

Jamaica_Bride

eclaires:

I agree w/ you.  Feet = pjs.  No feet =/= pjs.

 

Ditto

JellymanKelly

Pin has spoken, so there's no need for anyone else to answer (haha), but I agree. Feet = Pajamas, No feet = Outfit.

 I also disagree that anything one-piece is pajamas. DS had TONS of one piece outfits, rompers, etc from birth to 18 months and none of them looked like pajamas!