Questions for parents on the board ....

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: joedrake
My dad leashed me still does...

what did you post? i cannot understand it. all i see is woof-woof-woof.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

All the dangerous circumstances you mentioned could be avoided by staying home. I don't expect my 1 year old can behave themselves in for the duration of a movie, so I don't bring them there.
I don't expect that my 4.5 year old can walk around the mall for 4 hours without eventually becoming exhausted and irritable, so I keep shopping trips short or get a babysitter.

In your specific example, my children don't play near the street, ever, and the absolute boundary of safety is in my line of sight.

A child that darts into traffic, should not have been in a position to do so in the first place. No leash needed.

Now, the seatbelt analogy, that is ridiculous.

 

[mundane]

Very interesting responses. Thanks for the clarifications on both sides; some reiterate arguments that I / my wife have voiced, but others are new. She posted this question on her forums (The Nest), and received nearly unamimous vehement 'nay' responses. I expected more positive votes from this crowd, it's kind of a pleasant surprise to see that I misjudged. We've got another decade before we'd like to start a family; I guess I've got some learning to do before then =)

BTW, this issue was sparked while we were watching Autsin Powers 3, the scene in which Mini-me is on a harness, and Dr. Evil pulls his back saying "Got me a marlin!". That movie kills my wife every time.

Thanks again.

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
What's the difference between the "I don't have children, and really don't care" and the "Whatever" option?
Both seem to be the choice of indifference.

I wanted to throw in a catch-all option for people who didn't want to take part in the vote. I guess I should've stuck to the standard "Just show me the results!"

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

All the dangerous circumstances you mentioned could be avoided by staying home. I don't expect my 1 year old can behave themselves in for the duration of a movie, so I don't bring them there.
I don't expect that my 4.5 year old can walk around the mall for 4 hours without eventually becoming exhausted and irritable, so I keep shopping trips short or get a babysitter.

In your specific example, my children don't play near the street, ever, and the absolute boundary of safety is in my line of sight.

A child that darts into traffic, should not have been in a position to do so in the first place. No leash needed.

Now, the seatbelt analogy, that is ridiculous.

Thanks for bolding it, because now it makes more sense. Stay home? That's a great suggestion. If you can't address a problem then just avoid it. Do you teach this profound philosophy to your children too?

It's great that your children perform perfectly within the bounds set by you. You must be the exception.

 

[Glavinsolo]

I don't even leash my dog (never had) and he is 18months. He knows better than to walk in the middle of the street or jump on people.

 

[FoBoT]

"I have children, don't use them, but don't see anything wrong with them."

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

All the dangerous circumstances you mentioned could be avoided by staying home. I don't expect my 1 year old can behave themselves in for the duration of a movie, so I don't bring them there.
I don't expect that my 4.5 year old can walk around the mall for 4 hours without eventually becoming exhausted and irritable, so I keep shopping trips short or get a babysitter.

In your specific example, my children don't play near the street, ever, and the absolute boundary of safety is in my line of sight.

A child that darts into traffic, should not have been in a position to do so in the first place. No leash needed.

Now, the seatbelt analogy, that is ridiculous.

Thanks for bolding it, because now it makes more sense. Stay home? That's a great suggestion. If you can't address a problem then just avoid it. Do you teach this profound philosophy to your children too?

It's great that you're children perform perfectly within the bounds set by you. You must be the exception.

A tether is clearly not addressing the problem anymore than a straightjacket addresses a psychotic episode.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

fenced in yard? dont let a 3yo play by the street?

there are no absolute boundaries of safety. a child can still run out in front of a car with a 10ft leash.

So why have a fence at all, is that what you're saying?

You can still die in a crash with a seatbelt, and a child can still run out into the street on a 2', 10', or 20' "leash"; that's not the point. The point is that you're limiting the potential as much as possible, and if I were guarding my child down a sidewalk near an active road I sure as hell wouldn't have 10' of slack in the "leash."

BTW, that story above about the kid diving into the street was me. When I was about 2 or so I took off after a ball into the street out of delirious excitement, and were it not for my grandfather to pick me up by my shirt before I went off the curb I'd be dead. You could practice the same active management as my grandfather did, but had he turned away for even a split second when I did that I'd be dead.

yeah, thats exactly what im saying.....:roll:

your story is exactly why i wouldnt let a 3 yo play with a ball in the front yard, unfenced.


we are both saying things can happen regardless of how precautionary a parent is. i wont use a leash to keep my child from running in the street/all over causing chaos in the grocery store. ill hold their hand or hold them if thats what the situation calls for.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

fenced in yard? dont let a 3yo play by the street?

there are no absolute boundaries of safety. a child can still run out in front of a car with a 10ft leash.

So why have a fence at all, is that what you're saying?

You can still die in a crash with a seatbelt, and a child can still run out into the street on a 2', 10', or 20' "leash"; that's not the point. The point is that you're limiting the potential as much as possible, and if I were guarding my child down a sidewalk near an active road I sure as hell wouldn't have 10' of slack in the "leash."

BTW, that story above about the kid diving into the street was me. When I was about 2 or so I took off after a ball into the street out of delirious excitement, and were it not for my grandfather to pick me up by my shirt before I went off the curb I'd be dead. You could practice the same active management as my grandfather did, but had he turned away for even a split second when I did that I'd be dead.

yeah, thats exactly what im saying.....:roll:

your story is exactly why i wouldnt let a 3 yo play with a ball in the front yard, unfenced.


we are both saying things can happen regardless of how precautionary a parent is. i wont use a leash to keep my child from running in the street/all over causing chaos in the grocery store. ill hold their hand or hold them if thats what the situation calls for.

:thumbsup:

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: joedrake
<woof><woof><woof>...

<blah><blah><blah>

 

[DougK62]

I think they're good in certain situations, but most of the time should not be used.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: joedrake
<woof><woof><woof>...

<blah><blah><blah>

:laugh:

 

[alien42]

i always had the view that you should not put your child on a leash like a pet but once i actually thought about it there are definately situations where they would be quite handy and in the childs best safety interest.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

All the dangerous circumstances you mentioned could be avoided by staying home. I don't expect my 1 year old can behave themselves in for the duration of a movie, so I don't bring them there.
I don't expect that my 4.5 year old can walk around the mall for 4 hours without eventually becoming exhausted and irritable, so I keep shopping trips short or get a babysitter.

In your specific example, my children don't play near the street, ever, and the absolute boundary of safety is in my line of sight.

A child that darts into traffic, should not have been in a position to do so in the first place. No leash needed.

Now, the seatbelt analogy, that is ridiculous.

Thanks for bolding it, because now it makes more sense. Stay home? That's a great suggestion. If you can't address a problem then just avoid it. Do you teach this profound philosophy to your children too?

It's great that you're children perform perfectly within the bounds set by you. You must be the exception.

A tether is clearly not addressing the problem anymore than a straightjacket addresses a psychotic episode.

A straightjacket is a damn solution if it's preventing them from harming themselves. What's so hard to understand about that? What would you recommend then?

It's great that your children are practically automaton, but that's not been my experience. In crowded environments especially, it only takes a second for their capricious interest to carry them somewhere beyond their strict adherence to your standards.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: alien42
i always had the view that you should not put your child on a leash like a pet but once i actually thought about it there are definately situations where they would be quite handy and in the childs best safety interest.

I was thinking an airport might be a good objective example of a place where one might be necessary. If it were our family with an 8, 4, and 1 year old we put the baby in a stroller. The 4 year old has to keep one hand on the stroller. The eight year old has to walk in front where we can see her.
Ask yourself what people did before tether's were invented?

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

All the dangerous circumstances you mentioned could be avoided by staying home. I don't expect my 1 year old can behave themselves in for the duration of a movie, so I don't bring them there.
I don't expect that my 4.5 year old can walk around the mall for 4 hours without eventually becoming exhausted and irritable, so I keep shopping trips short or get a babysitter.

In your specific example, my children don't play near the street, ever, and the absolute boundary of safety is in my line of sight.

A child that darts into traffic, should not have been in a position to do so in the first place. No leash needed.

Now, the seatbelt analogy, that is ridiculous.

Thanks for bolding it, because now it makes more sense. Stay home? That's a great suggestion. If you can't address a problem then just avoid it. Do you teach this profound philosophy to your children too?

It's great that you're children perform perfectly within the bounds set by you. You must be the exception.

A tether is clearly not addressing the problem anymore than a straightjacket addresses a psychotic episode.

A straightjacket is a damn solution if it's preventing them from harming themselves. What's so hard to understand about that? What would you recommend then?

It's great that your children are practically automaton, but that's not been my experience. In crowded environments especially, it only takes a second for their capricious interest to carry them somewhere beyond their strict adherence to your standards.

so just hold their hand? no need for a leash.

what do you feel is more effective for learning? a leash stopping a child at x ft., or a fathers/mothers hand holding theirs to stop them from running off?

 

[acemcmac]

When my parents took me sailing, I was tethered to the mast with a harness and leash at just the right legnth so that I couldn't jump overboard. I think that was an exelent decision (not that I remember it) in retrospect because I have a very healthy respect for the water and seamanship. To this day, I consider the waters of the Northern Chesapeake my home.

Really scarred me :roll:

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

All the dangerous circumstances you mentioned could be avoided by staying home. I don't expect my 1 year old can behave themselves in for the duration of a movie, so I don't bring them there.
I don't expect that my 4.5 year old can walk around the mall for 4 hours without eventually becoming exhausted and irritable, so I keep shopping trips short or get a babysitter.

In your specific example, my children don't play near the street, ever, and the absolute boundary of safety is in my line of sight.

A child that darts into traffic, should not have been in a position to do so in the first place. No leash needed.

Now, the seatbelt analogy, that is ridiculous.

Thanks for bolding it, because now it makes more sense. Stay home? That's a great suggestion. If you can't address a problem then just avoid it. Do you teach this profound philosophy to your children too?

It's great that you're children perform perfectly within the bounds set by you. You must be the exception.

A tether is clearly not addressing the problem anymore than a straightjacket addresses a psychotic episode.

A straightjacket is a damn solution if it's preventing them from harming themselves. What's so hard to understand about that? What would you recommend then?

It's great that your children are practically automaton, but that's not been my experience. In crowded environments especially, it only takes a second for their capricious interest to carry them somewhere beyond their strict adherence to your standards.

so just hold their hand? no need for a leash.

what do you feel is more effective for learning? a leash stopping a child at x ft., or a fathers/mothers hand holding theirs to stop them from running off?

Holding their hand is fine. To me it's the same concept of a leash; both bound their behavior to the parent. The only difference at this point would be you're required to hold the child's hand the entire time, and if you're in a position to do that without relapse then I take no issue.

Anyway, in my experience these things just don't happen, and it's always that one "I only looked away for a second!" moment that counts. I just want to do whatever I can to prevent such moments.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: shimsham
have children, would never use them.

children need to listen and obey their parents, not respond to a leash.

Agreed.

Children are capable of learning self control...
Now a leash might be appropriate if you were taking an 18mo old to the grand canyon scenic overlook, but the reality is you shouldn't bring your child there.

How about less leashes more smart parenting. If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

Don't be ridiculous. Even a well-behaved child still makes wrong decisions. What about the child that decides to dive out into the street chasing a ball or something by accident? Given proper time to rationalize their behavior they might not do such a thing, but a typical 3 year old might be more excited by the ball than the truck flying at their head.

"Leashes", if we want to call them that, do exactly what the OP has implies: They still have a degree of freedom while keeping them within absolute boundaries of safety as defined by the parent. If everyone made perfect decisions and had "smart parenting" and completely rational minds then we wouldn't need adult leashes either... seatbelts.

Accidents happen; take precaution. That is smart parenting, imo.

If you need a leash to control your child stay home.

All the dangerous circumstances you mentioned could be avoided by staying home. I don't expect my 1 year old can behave themselves in for the duration of a movie, so I don't bring them there.
I don't expect that my 4.5 year old can walk around the mall for 4 hours without eventually becoming exhausted and irritable, so I keep shopping trips short or get a babysitter.

In your specific example, my children don't play near the street, ever, and the absolute boundary of safety is in my line of sight.

A child that darts into traffic, should not have been in a position to do so in the first place. No leash needed.

Now, the seatbelt analogy, that is ridiculous.

Thanks for bolding it, because now it makes more sense. Stay home? That's a great suggestion. If you can't address a problem then just avoid it. Do you teach this profound philosophy to your children too?

It's great that you're children perform perfectly within the bounds set by you. You must be the exception.

A tether is clearly not addressing the problem anymore than a straightjacket addresses a psychotic episode.

A straightjacket is a damn solution if it's preventing them from harming themselves. What's so hard to understand about that? What would you recommend then?

It's great that your children are practically automaton, but that's not been my experience. In crowded environments especially, it only takes a second for their capricious interest to carry them somewhere beyond their strict adherence to your standards.

Most certainly a straightjacket does contain an episode, but it treats the symptom, wouldn't you agree?

Descartes, you misunderstand. My children are as bratty as the next, (well maybe slightly better than average, I only have girls ), we really do limit ourselves because of our children. There are places we don't go and things we don't do, because we have young children. If you've found that using a tether helps your family good for you. We won't use them, call it a philosophical difference.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz
My wife and I are having an ongoing discussion about this, we're not seeing eye-to-eye. We're still quite a few years away from trying to have a child, but that doesn't stop us from arguing/discussing related issues.

You know those child harnesses, where a child is free to run, while tether to the parent? I really like that idea. Let them have their mobility, a sense of independence, while I still retain enough control keep them out of dangerous areas. I see it as a win-win situation. It's not painful or cruel to them.

However, my wife doesn't feel that way. She says "they feel wrong". I argue that you can't be in direct physical contact with your child at all times when on a walk, especially if you've got more than one. I think her beef with it is that it's treating the kids like you would a family pet.

Thoughts? Comments?

I agree with your wife on this. Children are not stupid animals. They will listen to you as long as you don't let them walk all over you. If you plan on raising your children to be responsible, intelligent, functioning members of society then you should have no problem and you'll never need a device like this.

If you plan on treating them like pets and you don't want them to develop or learn anything and just plan on ignoring them then you shouldn't have children anyway.

BTW-I have a 4 year old son who is well behaved. I have never for one second considered a leash for my son.

 

[KarenMarie]

Text

Text

Text

These are far from the 'leash' that most ppl think of when they hear of a leash/harness. And as any parent knows... it is impossible to watch a child every second. Pay the cashier, unlock the car door, open the mailbox, try on a blouse in the store, say hello to a friend.... every one of these things will take an eye off a chiild long enough for them to get snatched or hit by a car... of whatever.

i dont see these and a 'training' tool... more of a safety precaution.

 

[alimoalem]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Ryan
Is your child a dog?

this is all i can think of when i see someone "walking" their child with one of those leashes.

same. i've seen a family with a toddler on a leash and i was shocked. this was in a mall, too.

 

[moshquerade]

for those parents who condone leashes, doesn't it make your child want to run away from you even more when he/she isn't leashed. you know, like a dog would.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
When my parents took me sailing, I was tethered to the mast with a harness and leash at just the right legnth so that I couldn't jump overboard. I think that was an exelent decision (not that I remember it) in retrospect because I have a very healthy respect for the water and seamanship. To this day, I consider the waters of the Northern Chesapeake my home.

Really scarred me :roll:

id compare that to a seatbelt in a car, not a leash in a grocery store.

i also think it was an excellent decison, since they were sailing the boat and had to keep their attention on that and a child.