Where: Park Slope B & N
When: Monday, 11ish
Who: Your nanny and children.
Nanny: Dressed a tad slutty for a bookstore, tight tank top, yellow & white, exposing lace colored red bra. Tight, dark colored jeans, clog sandals with 3" heel. Semi-full figured, but healthy looking Puerto Rican-esque (?), attractive with cocoa colored skin, large almond eyes, thick, lustrous hair and thick, supple lips. Very attractive.
Children: A girl of about 4, with stick straight brown hair, fair skin, wearing a pink shirt with a hamburger on it and pink pants with white tennis shoes that had metallic pink laces. A boy of about 1.4-2, with brown hair, army cut, fair skin, button up checkered shirt, khaki colored boy shorts and swimming shoes in khaki and brown.
What occurred? The nanny allowed the girl to roam 100% on her own. The little girl was talking to strangers all over the store including myself and my teenage son. The little girl also kept looking out to see if it was raining, at some point being in close proximity to the entrance with no supervision in site. The nanny sashayed around on heels she struggled to walk on dragging the boy behind her. Even though he was definitely too young to know, she was in the section of the store that sells sex books and that is where she remained for almost 1/2 hour, all the while never tending to the girl at all. When the boy, who was remarkably well behaved did stray from her side, she did reach down and yank him back. Mostly, he just hugged on her calves and walked circles around her.
Look, I know it's raining and it's not a good park season for the children. Even if we have sunshine, the equipment is all wet for the few hours of sun we get, but come on! Take the children in the book store and help them pick out books. Or, at the least SUPERVISE THEM!
wow. stick straight and sex books.
ReplyDeleteinteresting siting.
lol
so was it barnes and noble or was it the library this seems very conflicting..
ReplyDeleteCalm down idgit,
ReplyDeleteIt was clearly the bookstore. Library,jeez you never mix words?
what a very provocative description of the nanny! that totally cracked me up! were you there (op) checking out romance novels? awesome post!
ReplyDeletehow the hell do u know it wasnt the mom. you also seem jealous of this woman and her body i think. i ve been in this b and noble and the horror stories i have seen with parents alsol
ReplyDeleteI too thought the description of the nanny was rather, shall we say, "telling". hehe
ReplyDeleteEither a male sent in this sighting, or a woman (with a wee bit of jealousy) wrote it. MAJOR focus on nannies "very attractive" appearance and sexy tight clothing. LOL This caregiver definitely doesn't sound like "Nanny of The Year" by a long shot, but I have to admit, the description and focus on her appearance did make me laugh. Is there such a thing as a NILF? hahaha
I don't think that the OP was jealous of the nanny; I think those of you who are picking on her description are jealous that the OP writes a better description than you could have.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that just because the woman was clearly on the hotter end of the spectrum do you automatically assume that the OP was jealous? AND, why is it that it's the description that you jump on, when really what matters is that she treated her two charges like crap - that being the reason this site exists int he first place...
Why are we discussing the nannies appearance? Who cares if she was Jennifer Lopez or Ugly Betty! She allowed a child to wander around unsupervised! I think I posted something a while back about a sicko who molested a boy in the public library while mom was a few feet away.
ReplyDeleteSo, the little girl was upstairs and the nanny and boy were downstairs? Because you say that the little girl was near the entrance to the store at times and the nanny was looking at "sex" books which would be downstairs.
ReplyDeleteAnd while this siting sounds bad, I hate when I hear people talk about how the nanny was dressed, I see no point in discussing that.
Hmmm. Sounds like someone has a "Naughty Nanny" fantasy . . .
ReplyDeleteMaybe Super(hot) Nanny has another job on the side...if you know what I mean
ReplyDeleteMaybe this nanny should go to Andover and her Andover counterpart should frequent this bookstore instead. Would that make everybody happy?
ReplyDeleteIf the nanny is unattractive, or otherwise dressed in a "socially unacceptable way," people accuse the OP of being prejudiced and snobby. If nanny is pretty, they accuse OP of being either a lesbian (or horny man), or jealous.
What ever happened to the idea that describing the nanny is a way to identify her? This was a pretty nanny. The other was goth. Those descriprions would help me identify either one if she happened to be my nanny, or the nanny of a friend.
I hope the parents find out who she is and fire her high tight butt.
lol! Mom, you are too funny! lmao!!!
ReplyDeleteyour andover comment really made me laugh! lol
also, good post! :)
Are people seriously having to ask "why are the nanny's looks relevant"? Um, because, well DUH...the OPs of these posts don't usually know the nanny's NAME, or the NAME of the family the nannies work for, so their physical appearance helps in identifying them? Gawd, what's next, the police post a description of a suspect and ask for tips, and you squeak in a shrill little ignorant voice that the police must be "jealous" of the suspect or they wouldn't mention their physical appearance at all?
ReplyDeleteU must be st2pid, rofl!
Yes, because we all know slutty girls don't read.
ReplyDeleteI don't have much to comment as to the sighting itself, I just had to laugh about her being dressed too whore-ish for a bookstore.
That being said.. it is shady to let a little kid wander around a bookstore without keeping an eye on her.
There is a difference between an objective factual description for the purpose of identification, and subjective comment. What is slutty in Provo is high fashion in Tribecca. I don't think the police would send out a bulletin for a suspect "dressed slutty with supple lips!"
ReplyDeleteThat being said, this um... fashion challenged nanny was negligent to the extent that the little girl could have been in real danger.
lol Manhattan Nanny you crack me up! :) lolol
ReplyDeleteand I totally agree!
Manhattan Nanny-
ReplyDeleteMaybe the police SHOULD do that. People would be lining up to make a "citizen's arrest."
Also, I totally agree. What the nanny was wearing, her hair color/style, skin tone, even that she was "attractive" may be relevant details. The supple lips & lustrous hair, not so much. However, I think (hope) OP was being intentionally funny/dramatic.
had to come back to add-
ReplyDeletewhat kind of nanny lets a 4-yr-old wander around a store alone, especially in a major city?
and secondly, what kind of person wants to read sex books with a toddler hugging their leg?
Would you prefer "thick hair that was shiny and big lips."
ReplyDeleteJeez... you can't have it both ways. If it's "OK" to include a description, then it seems really petty to dictate to people how they do it. This particular OP has a wonderful command of language. I prefer her style to "text style" anyday.
What exactly are sex books in this context? I mean, the B&N doesn't have a XXX section, does it?
ReplyDeletehmm...? why do the posters always label the race of the nanny, but not of the children if the children are white? is it to be assumed that if no race is mentioned the child is white? i'm confused about this post.
ReplyDeleteSince both children are described as fair skinned, I would assume they were probably both white.
ReplyDelete