Seriously, why don’t those beautifully knitted imported baby sets have pants? Booties, sweater, and sometimes a cap, but no pants?
All hail miamouse, the long time lurker newbie! She hath stumped the all powerful SDMB!
[sub]So nobody else knows either, huh?[/sub]
Uh, no. It’s more like the fact that the question is so friggin’ lame that no one has bothered to answer.
Overnight is a little soon to start tooting the “I stumped the Panel!” trumpet, Miamouse. 
What “beautifully knitted imported baby sets”? Got a link that shows one? Most likely, the reason you haven’t gotten an “answer” yet is because nobody who saw your thread title last night, clicked on it, and read the OP, knew what you’re talking about.
Better yet, consider the possibility that it’s only the “beautifully knitted imported baby sets” with which you happen to be familiar that don’t have pants, and that all the rest of the beautifully knitted imported baby sets in the world have pants.
[sub]it may even be a conspiracy to keep you from ever having any baby pants–didja ever think about that?[/sub]
I’m not listening to you. The only stupid question is the one not asked. I’ve gotten 5 or more of these sets over the years. But the kids have never worn them, because they don’t match anything.
Okay, so consider the possibility that the people who, over the years, gave you five of these sets, for reasons of their own removed the pants.
Got a link that shows what you’re talking about? All the knitted baby sets I ever saw had at least coat, pants, a hat (or one of those goofy looking baby headbands), booties, and sometimes mittens.
If I’m correct in my interpretation, you’re saying that these sets of baby clothes come as only a partial set and don’t contain anything to cover the legs of the baby…have I got it?
I for one am stumped. Why the hell would anyone buy these incomplete outfits?
Duck Duck Goose thisis the kind of set I’m talking about.
Thanks, you may be right though, the pervs, running around in baby pants.
But, that’s not billed as a “set”–it’s billed as an “Open Weave Sweater”. The basic “object”, the main purpose of the item, is a “sweater”, and the hat and booties are just thrown in as extras–freebies–to make Grandma feel less stupid about blowing $26.95 on one itty-bitty baby sweater.
Looking at the link, it looks to me like outer-wear. Hat, boots, sweater. You dress the baby as normal then put this stuff on to go outside. Can you imagine how inconvenient diaper changes would be having to remove knit trousers from a squirming baby?
Eh, they’re not any worse to remove than other types of baby pants–those itty-bitty overalls, or dress pants, or teeny girls’ tights, or corduroys, or infant sweat pants God help us.
Everything I can find on that site, including the pricing in dollars, indicates that it is an American site. So why would this indicate that European babies don’t wear pants? Must be those American pantless babies.
maybe they’re assuming that your baby is wearing big bulky diapers instead of pants. You know, some parents DO let their kids run around without pants
I, myself didn’t wear pants until last year.
They’re typically made for babies under 6 months, which means a diaper change is not as difficult as say a 1yr old trying to kick out of a caca-pamper. But, don’t you think if it was cool enough to put extra clothes on, I’d put a real jacket type jumpsuit, thus keeping the cute little bottom covered and warm?
Especially since the site says that the point of this outfit is that
Sounds pretty dumb to include booties but not pants, IMHO.
And she doesn’t do it much now!
Ba-bump Pop!
Perhaps they should change it to head AND toe (not the middle bit), just to be correct 
Sorry, can’t resist…
Then what kind of questions do stupid people ask?
stofsky inquires, “Then what kind of questions do stupid people ask?”
I’ve found that the only stupid question is the one you keep asking over and over and over even after someone answered it. But, that’s probably just my take on it from doing tech support.
As for the baby pants…everyone I know with kids that age either has them wrapped up in a blanket when it’s cold, or is letting them lounge around waving their little feeties in the air whilst the central heat is running. I don’t have kids of my own, but I’ve seen a lot of kids in a shirt, diaper, and socks, at least up till toddling age.
Corr
Well, I think we had a couple sets like that for the Tamexite, but the sweater was actually a sweater dress, so it made sense for it not to have pants. This sweater doesn’t look quite long enough to be a dress, and it’s for boys and girls, so it doesn’t look like that’s the case here.
I’m going for the “it’s outerwear” theory. This isn’t meant to be a full outfit–it’s what you wear over a full outfit (including pants) to go outside in the spring or fall, or you might dress Baby in it in the winter in a drafty house or something like that. I suppose it depends on your climate, really. Perhaps something like this is more practical for a milder European climate than the harsher winters of the American Midwest.
You could have your kid wear it indoors whenever a sweater would be appropriate, but you’re just going to have to supply your own pants.