Kids on leashes

Well... there doesn't seem much wiggle room for discussion there. I'm heartened by the fact that so far you seem to be the only person in the thread that's had such a strong reaction though.

I don't like lazy parents and every kid I see on a leash, I look at their parent and that parent is always absorbed in something other than what they should be doing, which is paying attention to their kid. And I may be the only one in this thread that is having a strong reaction, but my feelings on the matter are actually quite common among parents. Parents who put their kids on leashes are routinely looked down upon and mocked by other parents, and rightfully so in my opinion.
 
I don't like lazy parents and every kid I see on a leash, I look at their parent and that parent is always absorbed in something other than what they should be doing, which is paying attention to their kid. And I may be the only one in this thread that is having a strong reaction, but my feelings on the matter are actually quite common among parents. Parents who put their kids on leashes are routinely looked down upon and mocked by other parents, and rightfully so in my opinion.

Parents have four choices:

1) Exert some sort of physical limiter on their kids. Hold their hand, or leash them up, whatever.

2) Massage their own ego with the idea that they are never going to have a lapse of attention, then massage their own ego further when none of their inevitable lapses actually results in disaster...which is really just a reflection that disaster is always unlikely.

3) Be so successful at dominating the little person with their greater size and strength that the little person becomes a terrorized little cling on that would never wander off for anything, while the parent enjoys a few years of simulated godhood.

4) Just not give a darn one way or another and allow the general security of civilization to keep their kid safe, or not.
 
Wrong. Strollers allow for convenient transport of the child and all the assorted supplies one needs to take care of the child in public. Car seats are a safety measure to ensure the child doesn't die in a car accident since they are much more vulnerable than an adult human.

Leashes are abuse though, because what do you think that is going to do to a child psychologically when they see dogs on leashes too? It puts the child on the same level as a domesticated animal.



This post makes me suspect you aren't a parent.

Your logic doesn't follow/isn't valid. You might as well claim giving children baths is a form of abuse. After all, they might see dogs also being given baths, and that puts them on the same level as a domesticated animal.

On the flip side, you claim that children don't have an element of unpredictability in terms of suddenly running off. No matter how well a parent tries to discipline some children, that's not true. There are kids who will do exactly that, with or without regards for potential harm. You can make a legitimate case that a leash contributes to safety for those children.

To claim that this is something meeting standards of abuse, you'll have to do better than a poor analogy which is logically identical to basic hygiene. Considering the amount of time they've been used, perhaps there is solid data on how leashes affect children. If we don't have that evidence, I see no reason to consider leashes more abusive than other child safety devices on average.

Children might even see their parents and other people feeding dogs, maybe some strangers are even giving dogs food the child has eaten before! No, to accept abuse as an interpretation we need plausible criteria for it...not stuff that applies to every parent ever.
 
On the flip side, you claim that children don't have an element of unpredictability in terms of suddenly running off. No matter how well a parent tries to discipline some children, that's not true. There are kids who will do exactly that, with or without regards for potential harm. You can make a legitimate case that a leash contributes to safety for those children.

This is where the totalitarian tyrant parent comes in. "My kids wouldn't DARE run off. They respond to my every command with 'yes, sir! as you say, sir!' and no shiny distraction will ever cause them to even glance away from the center of their universe...which is me." Of course children raised that way have a very high incidence of running completely amok at age 18 plus one day, if they make it that far.
 
On the flip side, you claim that children don't have an element of unpredictability in terms of suddenly running off. No matter how well a parent tries to discipline some children, that's not true. There are kids who will do exactly that, with or without regards for potential harm. You can make a legitimate case that a leash contributes to safety for those children.

When I was growing up I don't remember any of my friends ever getting injured or killed or abducted or lost or whatever that could have been mitigated by means of a leash.

I say let the kids run around, and those who don't make it just don't get to contribute to the gene pool. That way kids become smarter and stronger each generation, until a time when leashes are not needed at all except maybe for infants.
 
When I was growing up I don't remember any of my friends ever getting injured or killed or abducted or lost or whatever that could have been mitigated by means of a leash.

I say let the kids run around, and those who don't make it just don't get to contribute to the gene pool. That way kids become smarter and stronger each generation, until a time when leashes are not needed at all except maybe for infants.

Parents maybe want their children to survive to adulthood. And not all children have the same sensibility. That much I've observed.
 
Your logic doesn't follow/isn't valid. You might as well claim giving children baths is a form of abuse. After all, they might see dogs also being given baths, and that puts them on the same level as a domesticated animal.

This is a false comparison and as such, doesn't really do anything to counter my point.

On the flip side, you claim that children don't have an element of unpredictability in terms of suddenly running off.

No, I didn't claim that.

There are kids who will do exactly that, with or without regards for potential harm. You can make a legitimate case that a leash contributes to safety for those children.

Except leashes don't really make the kid any safer, all it does is ensure they don't run off. However, since most parents who put their kid on a leash do so to avoid having to pay closer attention to their children, it still allows a kid to hurt themselves in all kinds of ways. Not to mention, the kid runs off, forgetting they have a leash, and when they hit the limit of their range, they are violently snapped back and probably slam their head on the ground as a result. How is that safer?

The whole point of being a parent is to be the guardian of your child. To do that, you have to actually pay attention to your child, whether they are on a leash or not. So parents who use leashes to reduce the amount of attention they have to give to their children are being neglectful, and the state defines neglect as a form of abuse.

No matter how well a parent tries to discipline some children, that's not true.

Then that parent isn't doing a good enough job. Disciplining your kids isn't going to work no matter how hard you try if you just plain suck at it. It's all about setting boundaries early and having real consequences that you follow through on when the child crosses those boundaries. Problem is, most parents now either don't want to put in that kind of effort, or they are more interested in being friends with their children instead of being their parent so they don't want to do anything that will make their child angry with them. And before you try to bring it up, this is all assuming the child doesn't have some sort of mental disorder that causes behavioral problems. Obviously that is a different story and conventional parenting tactics don't apply in those circumstances.

Considering the amount of time they've been used, perhaps there is solid data on how leashes affect children.

Surprisingly, there does seem to be a lively debate on the matter among parents and child psychologists, yet no one has done an actual study to see what the effects of leashing a child might have on the child. Seems like since the issue is a pretty big topic among parents that someone would try to provide a definitive answer to the question.

Parents maybe want their children to survive to adulthood. And not all children have the same sensibility. That much I've observed.

Well if they want their children to survive, perhaps they should start by actually paying attention to them instead of just strapping a leash on them and then going back to checking their Twitter.
 
You do realize that the leash doesn't go around their necks, right? It's either attached to a harness the kid wears, a wristband, or waistband.
Then it's a tether, not a leash. :mad: This entire thread is based on a false premise :mad:
 
Parents maybe want their children to survive to adulthood. And not all children have the same sensibility. That much I've observed.

Personally I think parents are way wayyy too overprotective these days. Leashes are not necessary! If you can't ensure that your kid doesn't make it to adulthood without a leash then you are probably just a crappy parent. (Not you personally)
 
In the last year I've seen a group of daycare kids (under age 5) tethered together. Two or three adults are not enough to stop one of the 20 kids from deciding he wants to run out onto the highway. In the two seconds it takes one of them to react the kid is already hit by a car. And who bears responsibility for that, the daycare center or the parent who didn't teach his kid not to run out onto the road?

Yes, my kid likes to wander, that's why I......hold onto him/hold his hand when near traffic or other dangerous spots.
 
When I was a kid none of this was ever a problem. Kids are not morons, once they are old enough you can teach them to not run into traffic.

Leashes are nothing but a quick solution for lazy parents who don't have time to parent properly and effectively.
 
This is a false comparison and as such, doesn't really do anything to counter my point.

It is logically identical to your leash --> dogs psychological example. If it's a false comparison, it would be useful for you to point out how they're actually different.

No, I didn't claim that.

-->

We used leashes because no matter how well trained a dog may be, there is still an element of unpredictability to their behavior and you never know what might provoke them to act aggressively toward a person or another animal. Children tend to not have that element of unpredictability to their behavior.

Children are less capable of harming people than adult dogs (usually, though truly unstable children have killed people a leash is not the answer there), but given that blocking aggressive behavior isn't the primary reasoning for using a leash in either case...

Except leashes don't really make the kid any safer, all it does is ensure they don't run off.

I'm not saying a kid is necessarily safe while leashed, but in principle a kid that has run off in a public place is less safe at greater distance from the parent(s).

when they hit the limit of their range, they are violently snapped back and probably slam their head on the ground as a result. How is that safer?

We're not arguing about cartoon physics.

The whole point of being a parent is to be the guardian of your child. To do that, you have to actually pay attention to your child, whether they are on a leash or not.

This is not in dispute. The idea that using leash is abuse is in dispute. Nobody claimed that a leash is a substitute for actual attention that I saw. What it will do is block a sudden run-off at a moment's distraction. It won't make breakfast for you, educate children, cure cancer, or ensure psychological well being. That it won't do those things does not mean using it is abuse.

Then that parent isn't doing a good enough job. Disciplining your kids isn't going to work no matter how hard you try if you just plain suck at it. It's all about setting boundaries early and having real consequences that you follow through on when the child crosses those boundaries.

There are some children where there is nothing you can do in terms of consequences to prevent them suddenly attempting to run off. It doesn't matter what boundaries you set or what consequences you give them. The mental/medical issue is an example, but it isn't the only example. You can't predict what an immature (or even some mature people) might do in a split second when given x unknown stimuli to 100% certainty.

And this is also ignoring the possibility of the child being taken against its will. If you're talking about some place like a theme park with lots of crowding, even 95% of your attention on something is insufficient in principle; it's not human nature to never break focus for 5 seconds across a day. Toss in Tim's example of multiple children and this gets unrealistic fast.

Surprisingly, there does seem to be a lively debate on the matter among parents and child psychologists, yet no one has done an actual study to see what the effects of leashing a child might have on the child. Seems like since the issue is a pretty big topic among parents that someone would try to provide a definitive answer to the question.

That's...not ideal :D.

Well if they want their children to survive, perhaps they should start by actually paying attention to them instead of just strapping a leash on them and then going back to checking their Twitter.

Find me a person who will never get distracted for 5 seconds for any reason and you'll be presenting me a new sentient species.

Personally I think parents are way wayyy too overprotective these days. Leashes are not necessary! If you can't ensure that your kid doesn't make it to adulthood without a leash then you are probably just a crappy parent. (Not you personally)

I have no children, so my stake in this is logical/argumentative rather than personal. It's a reach to claim leashes are "necessary" since many get by just fine without them. However, it's also a reach to claim they're "abuse", especially when (somehow) we clearly lack evidence to make that conclusion one way or the other. The motivation for using them can be reasonable.

Leashes are nothing but a quick solution for lazy parents who don't have time to parent properly and effectively.

I find this comment to be inane unless we're talking about parents who just go around leashing their kids all the time (I have yet to see this, but it's a big world so some idiot's probably done it). The most typical use would be in very crowded areas, as an extra measure against getting separated. I don't see how this makes a parent "lazy" (one could simply not take their child into such areas ever, which uses less effort by a margin), nor how it reflects on how the child is taught or handled in other situations.

If I see a child leashed at Disney or something I don't think much of it.

If I see a child leashed by a parent walking him/her into school one-on-one my thought process doesn't go to "lazy". Rather, the more likely explanations when witnessing something like that is a) child has medical condition like Commodore alluded to or b) the parent is overprotective to a fault/is using a thought process that I don't understand.

I expect parents that routinely put children on a leash when doing simple outings are not the typical group that would be doing it just to look at twitter or something. Most parents will simply opt to take their children to places where they don't require undivided attention and then skip the leash entirely, so TYPICALLY seeing the leash implies something else.
 
When I was a kid none of this was ever a problem. Kids are not morons, once they are old enough you can teach them to not run into traffic.

Leashes are nothing but a quick solution for lazy parents who don't have time to parent properly and effectively.

Kids start dumber than cats, need to catch them, then are still dumber than dogs and need to catch them. During these stages they are not nearly as physically adept at movement or spatial judgements as either dogs or cats. Cats and dogs get killed traffic all the time. So do kids, for that matter, if you care to look. Your kid will eventually be smart enough to usually act intelligently in traffic. Though I wouldn't put money on it until they're in their 30s and have been driving for 15 years. If your kid is too young to be trusted to make the right decision every time, considering the possible price of failure, you hold their hand around traffic. If you are going to be doing something where their hand cannot be held and you still need to be around potentially dangerous traffic? Tether them. Take it back off when it's no longer needed. I've not needed to do this, but I have one. He gets a lot of attention.

Edit: I mean, we can overthink the hell out of this if we want, but yes, watching your kids where they might get hurt is still good advice. Apron strings at age appropriate stages, all that jazz.

From link:
Pedestrian injuries were more likely to be fatal or result in hospitalization than pedalcyclist injuries. Peak incidence rates for pedestrian injuries occur at ages 5–9, followed by 2–4 and 10–14. Although pedestrian injury incidence rates at ages 65 and over are lower than for other age groups except 0–1, the elderly have the highest fatal and hospitalized incidence rates. For pedal-cyclist injuries, peak incidence is at ages 5–14, followed by 15–19.

You can read the whole thing if you want and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to guess 0-1 is explained by being a babe-in-arms being relatively safe, 2-4 being hand-held and teathered, and 5-9 being "learning to be free." Free-range-near-traffic 2 year olds would be armadillo level carnage.
 
Last edited:
I find this comment to be inane unless we're talking about parents who just go around leashing their kids all the time (I have yet to see this, but it's a big world so some idiot's probably done it). The most typical use would be in very crowded areas, as an extra measure against getting separated. I don't see how this makes a parent "lazy" (one could simply not take their child into such areas ever, which uses less effort by a margin), nor how it reflects on how the child is taught or handled in other situations.

If I see a child leashed at Disney or something I don't think much of it.

You have made me re-think my position. Yeah, in some situation it makes sense. If you have 8 kids and are in a busy place, like Bangkok or Tokyo or Disneyland, and they're not old enough yet to fend for their own, sure, leash them up.

But if you've just got 1 or two kids.. Just look after them like a normal person
 
Then it's a tether, not a leash. :mad: This entire thread is based on a false premise :mad:

Hold up...I know plenty of dogs that wear a full harness in place of a collar. Are they not leashed? They go places that require them to be on a leash. Are they breaking the rules?
 
On the flip side, you claim that children don't have an element of unpredictability in terms of suddenly running off. No matter how well a parent tries to discipline some children, that's not true. There are kids who will do exactly that, with or without regards for potential harm.

Evolution demands that we let those kids go. For the greater good.
 
My mom bought us one for my oldest but we laughed and said we'd never use it. When the second kid came along we decided to try it at the zoo but he hated it so we just kept an eye on him and it worked out. With the third I've used it a couple times to keep him near while I cleaned the garage, grilled, worked on something, etc. I feel a little shamed every time we pull it out but, man, I just really don't want him to get hit by a car or something, ya know?
 
My mom bought us one for my oldest but we laughed and said we'd never use it. When the second kid came along we decided to try it at the zoo but he hated it so we just kept an eye on him and it worked out. With the third I've used it a couple times to keep him near while I cleaned the garage, grilled, worked on something, etc. I feel a little shamed every time we pull it out but, man, I just really don't want him to get hit by a car or something, ya know?

Three is the magic number. When you and your wife are outnumbered its time to rely on being the master tool using ape.
 
Back
Top Bottom