What idiot decided on pastels for babies? They spit, throw up and burp, and that is just on the TOP half. Guaranteed to mark whatever they are wearing, if the item is light colored. Wouldn't it make more sense to dress them in dark colors? Especially as, from what I've read, they don't perceive anything but highly contrasting colors at as this website says happens at first? So we dress them in colors that they can't see and that will stain almost as soon as they are put on. I don't understand. It wasn't that long ago that baby BOYS were dressed in pink because it was a derivative of red, a war-like color (who wanted girls to be anything but dainty and biddable?) A fascinating website about this subject, Historical Boys Clothing. Okay, I admit that I did web research as I wrote this! How else would I be able to back up what I say! grin I find it interesting that white was historically easier to keep clean. But then, we no longer boil clothes to wash them!
Knitting patterns are almost always shown in pastels because they are easier to photograph, especially to show stitch definition (I've learned the hard way -- experience.) Baby patterns also have the "cuteness" or "ahhh that's sweet" factor in perceived to be traditional colors. I can understand why baby knitting patterns are almost always shown in pastels, but there is a part of me that wishes that they were shown in deeper colors. After all, new knitters and knitting muggles are going to want to knit/receive it exactly as shown. Unless it is something for a very special occasion, I'd rather knit something for a baby in colors that don't show the stain very well. Mon Tricot patterns had some really great patterns in more baby friendly colors. I don't know if that was cultural, as the magazine came from France, and the patterns were translated into English for the U.S. version. Too bad the magazine folded.