Speaking of Kids in public. I like these.

[Touchdown]

But... then again I'm not a parent and it keeps them out of my hair. What do parents think? are kid leashes demeaning?

[LynneSin]

1. I'm a bit torn on those - I mean they aren't pets - they are your kids

But then again it's very easy to lose a kid in a crowded place PLUS there are some kids that just hate riding in strollers. My best friend's youngest child hated strollers. As soon as that kid learned to walk she wanted to walk.

[EFerrari]

70. We don't leash dogs because they're dogs, we do it for their safety.

And probably, we want kids to be as safe as our dogs. It's just a tool that let's the kiddo walk instead of being in stroller jail.

[Touchdown]

88. They not? Really?

I don't know.;)

[blondeatlast]

235. LAX bathroom with my four year old son; I'd just begun my stream when

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOSH--right out the door.

A woman had just entered (we were the only people in the restroom) and grabbed him. She apologized for grabbing him and I just hugged her and told (tearfully) her how very grateful I was.

My opinion on kid leashes changed after that. Worst. Experience. Of. My. Entire. Life. Still is, even worse than the circumstances that led to my divorce.

[Codeine]

2. The leashes are great.

The kid has his little zone to wander but can't bolt off and get into too much trouble.

And most people don't seem to find them demeaning so much as kinda cute! :)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. A LONG time ago, I didn't like them.

I thought they were too controlling, too confining.

Now?

It's a very dangerous world out there. I really see these not as controlling, but as a means to keep the child from getting snatched, or some such.

They have their time and place. Kids need to be able to run and play freely someplace, of course.

I see them as a safety measure, much as I see car seats.

[NeedleCast]

22. "It's a very dangerous world out there"

No, it isn't.

It is, for the most part, a very, very safe world compared to how the world has been at any point prior. Humans have managed in much, much harsher situations for a long, long time, and even prospered. Maybe too much propering.

[Posteritatis]

41. +1

Also, in before people start replying with a handful of news articles about individual incidents that prove we're living in more dangerous times than ever before. Of course, this is often one of those "facts can't possibly convince me" sorts of discussions, as evidenced by people citing fiction in the thread as reasons for us to be paranoid.

[NeedleCast]

73. Knee-Jerkers

I wonder what they could put that energy towards if they weren't trying to insure that each child receive their own personal coating of bubble-wrap, leash, and GPS tracking chip (you know, so they don't fall victim to the unlimited supply of child-snatchers out there).

[Posteritatis]

82. To be fair they usually start aiming those at the adults if not the kids

Just look at Britain or Australia lately, for instance.

Half the time I'm curious about how many people here would happily do things like tracking chips for their kids (or for adult populations in the interest of protecting their kids); the rest of the time I really, really don't want to know.

[NeedleCast]

87. No shortage of authoritarians here

After all, we must have a perfectly civilized society. Freedom should be sacrificed on the alter of safety.

I feel like I've heard that argument from a high-ranking political figure as recently as about a one president ago, don't you.

Somewhere out there, Orwell is point at us and laughing furiously.

[HuckleB]

50. +1000000000000000 !!!!!

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4418620.ece

[Silent3]

189. Thanks for the link

Great article.

[HuckleB]

249. You're welcome.

[EFerrari]

64. Oh, baloney. Very young children walking have no experience dealing with

potential dangers. That's why people "baby-proof" their homes. That's why children's furniture and clothes and food and toys are regulated. That's why it's illegal to leave them alone. Apes are relatively helpless longer than just about any primate. That's why chimp mothers carry their babies around for years before they go exploring on their own, usually surrounded by other members of their troop. Yes, there are a LOT of potential dangers to young children who are able to walk but not able to judge yet.

[NeedleCast]

72. Exactly, which is why my statement that it's a rather safe world

is fact.

Thank you for reinforcing that.

We've gone a long way towards making our children as safe as possible. Here in the states, we often take it too far...but that's just my opinion, not fact.

[EFerrari]

79. Nope. It's not a rather safe world if you are that young and on your feet. n/t

[NeedleCast]

80. Child Mortality Rates Have Dropped By 70% in 50 years

Why do you think that is?

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sh_dyn_mort&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=child+mortality+statistics

It is ridiculously safe to be a child living in the U.S.

[EFerrari]

81. Do you think that could have anything to do with the bubble wrap

that knee jerk parents put around their children? :crazy:

[NeedleCast]

85. almost certainly

My initial response was to a poster who claimed that the "world is a very dangerous place." My argument - which is statically born out - is that it's not a very dangerous world at all.

[EFerrari]

221. Which turns out to be a circular argument.

Kids are safer now because of measures like mandated car seats and a host of others that the culture has taken. That doesn't mean the world is safe. That only means we're mediating risk appropriately.

I'm not saying parents should live in fear for 18 years or more but the entire purpose for parenting is to keep a vulnerable young primate safe until it can protect itself. That's the job.

[HuckleB]

225. You're offering a selective argument. And the argument that you claim to be circular is not.

Try looking at the whole picture. You might finally see that the ludicrous fears you offered are baseless. The world is not as dangerous as it used to be, yet many pretend it is more dangerous than ever, and they advocate sheltering children so that those children miss out on a great deal of development.

Please don't offer the usual denial.

[EFerrari]

234. Oh, brother. Using a harness on toddlers gets them out of strollers.

How is that "sheltering chidren" so they miss out on development?

lol

Your argument is even less rational than your projections.

[HuckleB]

246. Once again, I have not said a thing about harnesses.

Hello? You're not even responding to my the actual content of my posts, which are very rational.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4418620.ece

[Silent3]

201. The problem is that the "bubble wrap" is a very mixed bag.

The biggest problem is that most human beings are absolutely, utterly terrible at risk assessment. Emotion, sense of familiarity and illusions of control (or lack thereof) play a much bigger role is what people think is risky and what they think is safe than actual, factual, statistical risk analysis.

There's also the matter of whether or not what parents are doing is really working or not (and which parts are working, which are ineffective, and which are counterproductive), if the actual risks go down but the sense that "it's a dangerous world out there" remains, or even intensifies, there's obviously some sort of disconnect from reality going on. One thing that disconnect screws up is our sense of priority.

If people worried as much about harm to children from lack of good medical care as they do about the child kidnappers lurking behind every corner, we'd wouldn't have had to wait over a year into the Obama administration for a tepid half-baked health care bill to maybe possibly pass, the damn Republicans would have passed a much better bill for us years ago.

[HuckleB]

202. +1

[Posteritatis]

86. Not to mention the plummet in crime rates in general

Another objectively true fact which will always be denied by the fearfearfear folks among us. (And if they do, they neglect to figure out the fact that most of the "snatchers" are relatives or neighbors anyway.)

[HuckleB]

117. Actually, it is a very safe world, no matter your age.

[EFerrari]

138. What a massively ridiculous statement.

You know, denying potentially dangerous situations, let alone, every day hazards, is not a form of bravery.

lol

[HuckleB]

142. I'm not denying a thing.

Unfortunately, for you, the world is not as scary as you pretend it is. But you can pretend all you want!

[EFerrari]

179. I ddin't say the world was scary. Maybe you're reading my posts

in a parallel universe.

Risk assessment is not fear. It's common sense.

[HuckleB]

182. You called my post ridiculous.

My post is all about the reality of risk assessment.

Your other posts on this thread make it very clear that your fear is not based on actual reality.

[EFerrari]

220. The generalization is ridiculous and it doesn't in any way take risk assessment

into account.

My fear, my granny. lol

[HuckleB]

223. It completely takes risk assessment into account.

Especially when it's in response to a fear based post, that does not take actual risk assessment into account in any way.

[Hekate]

69. See my post #68. It's really a case by case, family by family decision. Really. nt

[Common Sense Party]

90. +1,000,000

It is indeed a VERY safe world. One of the most dangerous thing seems to be media hype and sensationalization.

[Ms. Toad]

131. The dangers are just very different in the places most of us.

reading this board live now. Leashes wouldn't have kept kids safe from the dangers their parents, grandparents, etc. faced - disease, injury from farm equipment, etc. In some instances they do provide some measure of protection against the different dangers they now face - e.g. wandering off in a crowded mall or airport without a good visual line of sight/hearing to be able to retrieve them.

[HuckleB]

145. So where are the rash of disappeared kids due to wandering off in malls and airports?

[Ms. Toad]

148. Kids are separated from their parents at malls and airports

every day. Spend some time in a mall listening to the overhead pages - in airports they don't generally use the overhead page so it is not so obvious. Spend some time volunteering in your local metroparks in a position where you have access to the ranger's chatter on the radio. Kids wandering off is a fairly frequent occurrence. Generally they are found and re-united with their parents without any serious long-term consequences.

In times past, the crowds were thinner. a dinner bell could be heard across the section, and all the neighbors knew who you belonged to anyway. You were more likely to fall (or get pushed) into an irrigation ditch by your brother, fall out of a tree, or get tangled up in the farm equipment you were expected to drive or start operating at 8-10. My point is that in this day and age we are more often in crowded situations like malls, airports, etc. where it only takes a few seconds for kids to disappear from their parents' sight and be hidden by the crowd and out of auditory range - and no one recognizes the child or parents by sight. Those are very different dangers than the dangers faced by previous generations. A harness decreases the modern day risk in a way that would not have been practical (or necessary) a few generations ago.

[HuckleB]

157. So you've got nothing.

In other words, things are like they've always been, and kids are mostly very safe.

[Ms. Toad]

164. Go back and read the post you responded to.

I said the the dangers today are different. "Different" doesn't imply greater, less, or anything else related to the quantity of risk. I don't think you'll find any post in which I quantified the level of danger - either in this thread or any other.

As I said in both my first post and my second - the leashes provide a measure of protection against some of the dangers faced by today's kids that are different dangers than those faced by previous generations of kids.

[HuckleB]

169. You made a claim that has no basis.

Your own post proved that, as does the fact that you can't answer my original question.

You can live in fear. I'll choose the real world.

[Ms. Toad]

180. You seem to have confused me with someone who

made a claim you disagree with. Go find that person and argue with them. My claim was only that the dangers kids face today are different than the dangers faced by previous generations. You haven't suggested otherwise, since you seem fixated on demanding I prove something I never said in the first place and rubbing my nose in it when I decline to defend someone else's point.

Frankly, if you're debating opponents who don't exist I'm not sure how real your world actually is..

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Toad]

209. What claim is it you think I've made?

None of the comments you've made even remotely refute - or even address - any claim I actually made.

[HuckleB]

213. Your claims are in post 180.

Hello?

:shrug:

[Ms. Toad]

215. So you are contending the dangers are identical?

Are you insisting (for example) that polio is a danger to kids now (now as it was for their grandparents)? If not, that's a different danger then than now.
Are you insisting (for example) that kids in the 1800s could have gone into an airport, gotten separated from their parents within in seconds because of the volume of people? If not, that's a different danger now than then.

That's all I said - the dangers now are different than the dangers previous generations faced. The harness address a danger that is present now that was a virtually non-existent danger in previous generations. That shouldn't be a controversial statement. Don't know why you're making it into one.

[HuckleB]

217. I've not said a thing about harnesses.

You talked about crowds and airports, etc... And crowds have existed for some time now. You are using polio as a distraction.

[Ms. Toad]

219. I talked about dangers being diferent now from in the past,

Polio is not a distraction it is an example of precisely what I have been saying all along.

I have given numerous examples of past and present dangers to illustrate that there are differences - polio is just the most recent example I have given of a past danger that we no longer consider a danger. Polio was a very real threat in my lifetime - I was vaccinated when I was around 5 in the first sugar cube wave, and a neighbor girl just a few years older contracted polio before the vaccine was available.

Getting legs mangled in farm machinery was an earlier example I gave. It is not a modern day danger for most kids because we have moved, in a few short generations, from an agricultural/industrial society to an urban society. Most kids won't see a tractor, grain augur, or drying bin before adulthood - let alone be required to operate them by age 12, as my peers and I were.

Crowds and airports are current dangers that did not exist as most of us lived not that many generations ago. When I graduated from high school, I was one of the few members in my graduating class who had ever flown. Plane fares were costly enough that plane travel was pretty much reserved for the wealthy - I spent my college years traveling to and from college 1000 miles away from home by Greyhound bus because plane fare cost too much. The closest mall when I was growing up was 100 miles away. My daughter, in contrast, has lived all of her life within 10 miles of a mall with crowds she could easily get lost in within seconds, and has flown multiple times a year since she was born.

My parents worried about me contracting polio until I was around 5, and worried about me getting caught in farm machinery (which happened to a mild degree when I was 5). Those were real dangers in the world I grew up in. My parents never worried about me being lost in crowds - there weren't many crowds around, and on the rare occasion when there were crowds around everyone knew me and knew who I belonged to. I certainly wasn't likely to get lost in a crowd in the mall or the airport - we never went there. The mall was too far away to visit and flying was beyond our means (as it was beyond the means of most families in those days - aside from the trip I took my Junior year in high school to visit the college I wanted to attend).

I don't worry about my daughter contracting polio, or getting her arm caught in the grain augur - those just aren't dangers children are exposed to these days. I did worry about her being separated from me in a crowd. We were in crowds frequently - and generally in crowds where no one knew us by sight. I didn't' use a harness with her - but I certainly might have if she had been more adventurous or if I had needed to keep my eyes on more than 1 child.

My entire point is and was that the dangers are different from prior generations. Crowded malls and airports are one example of the difference - and the harnesses (the subject of this thread) are one way to decrease the risk associated with this danger.

[HuckleB]

222. Yawn.

You made the generalization, and you made it in reference to airports and crowds.

You are now changing the topic to some very duh issues (to be kind) that have nothing to do with what we were discussing, and that comes after you claimed I had said a thing about harnesses. We both know why you are bringing up polio. And it's disingenuous at best.

:rofl:

Try again.

[Ms. Toad]

244. My comment was a "duh" comment in the first place.

I never understood why you felt the need to dispute it.

[HuckleB]

247. Your original comment is baseless.

You can confuse your later bait and switch all you want. It won't change that.

[Ms. Toad]

256. There was no later bait an swith - go back and read all my comments.

I made a comment, which should have been obviously true to anyone who read it. Dangers are different now than they were in previous generations. Duh. You took issue with it, and I repeatedly provided examples to support what should have been "duh" all along.

That is different from making a statement that is baseless - i.e. not supportable. Your failure to refute ANY of the illustrative examples I gave about the different dangers faced by today's kids than those in prior generations kinda proves the point.

[HuckleB]

257. Yes, go back and read your comments, and what they responded to...

You made a bait and switch. Live with it.

[Ms. Toad]

258. My original comment

>>The dangers are just very different in the places most of us reading this board live now. Leashes wouldn't have kept kids safe from the dangers their parents, grandparents, etc. faced - disease, injury from farm equipment, etc. In some instances they do provide some measure of protection against the different dangers they now face - e.g. wandering off in a crowded mall or airport without a good visual line of sight/hearing to be able to retrieve them.<<

Hmm....disease - think polio might one of those diseases? Not sure how something I expressly identify as a danger from generations ago that our kids today no longer face (in the very first post I make), later elaborate on it by naming one specific example within that danger group, can be legitimately characterized as baiting and switching. But suit yourself.

[HuckleB]

259. And for the last time, the dangers you list as being dangers that are different...

... existed back then, too.

Ugh.

[Silent3]

194. The "risk" is that of parents suffering from episodes of worry.

If the child slips away, the odds are very small anything bad will happen to the child. The parent, however, will go into complete panic. Putting the child on a leash significantly reduces the odds of having to face such an episode of panic.

The parent, however, will hardly eve use that reasoning to justify the leash.

I don't personally have a strong feeling about these child leashes either way. I can see pros and cons. I'm certainly against the "it's a dangerous world out there!" fanaticism, however.

[HuckleB]

196. Exactly.

[kestrel91316]

228. I got separated from my parents in a large department store in

Tokyo, Japan when I was 5. They probably wished they had had ME on a leash, though I was the one brought to hysterics by it.

[HuckleB]

238. And you were reunited, which is what happens 99.999 ... percent of the time.

[DrDan]

4. yes demeaning . . . but

I can understand their use in places like airports. There is so much going on . . . and parents just have the hands full (literally) with luggage, checking in, trying to get to the appropriate place on time. And there are so many temptations for children. So I understand why they are used.

Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do.

[Donnachaidh]

5. if you need a leash to take your kids out in public you need to work on your parenting skills

They aren't dogs -and the only way your kid is going to learn how to behave in public is in interacting with parents who set the guidelines for them. WITHOUT leashes.

Yeah, I'm old fashioned. But I also see many people reacting to these leashes with comments like *I wonder if the child is in special Ed*....

[Book Lover]

7. Since my child *is* in Special Ed, I can answer you easily

They are not leashes; they are harnesses. Doesn't sound any better, does it?

They are a lifesaver, literally, and I've never had anyone tell me in public that they disapprove. And if they did, they'd get a huge helping of "I don't give a fuck what you think."

Tell me, how did you teach your kids to stay close to you and not run off?

[Common Sense Party]

91. We held our child's hand, and we tried to keep an eye on him

when he did separate from us.

But our child is different from your child, and from a lot of children. Every kid is different, and every parent has to find a solution that works. If it works, more power to you.

Our "special ed" child is, incidentally, now 16--almost 17. He still doesn't talk, and he still wants to hold our hands whenever we walk anywhere. He doesn't have the "wander off" gene, apparently.

[A HERETIC I AM]

150. Dude, I had no idea.

I hope you're well.

My best to you and your family.

[Common Sense Party]

178. We're all doing well here, thanks. Kind of ready for winter to be over.

And I'd love to find work that doesn't require traveling 3 weeks out of every month. But I'm employed, and in this industry I should be happy with that.

How are you doing?

[MerryBlooms]

13. I totally disagree

In a chaotic environment like an airport or busy shopping area, it's easy for one person to come between the parent and child. Sometimes the child panics when he doesn't see they're right next to their parent like they thought, and the child takes off searching. You then have frantic parents looking for their kid and a very scared and panicked child. I have no problem with parents using 'leashes'.

As far as someone reacting with the attitude you describe <But I also see many people reacting to these leashes with comments like *I wonder if the child is in special Ed*> So what, that's on them and their narrow mind.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. I'm old fashioned, too, but I can certainly see where these would be

a real boon if you are taking a small child or children out in a crowd. All it takes is a moment for a child to wander away from even the most watchful parent even if you have been diligent about setting guidelines for the child. I don't see this as being much different than holding a child's hand and it is probably more comfortable for the child. They don't have to have their arm held up in the air for long periods of time.

[Touchdown]

25. There is an advantage of the kids holding their hands up all the time.

It trains them how to hold the handlebars on a Harley for later in life.:D

[cali]

26. baloney. my kid was a country kid

but in the city he was a mad dasher- and he preferred the leash to holding my hand- not to mention that it was fantastic for teaching him to ski.

[HuckleB]

51. Most kids shouldn't need them, but some might.

I'd rather see a kid walking around with a leash, than trapped in a stroller.

[EFerrari]

62. My second son started walking at 7 months and his brother was 3.

A harness would have been a godsend had I been smart enough to get one. Much safer for the boys, much less stressful for me while they sorted out how to be safely in public.

[monmouth]

6. They are wonderful. When my guys were young and I'd take them

to the beach. I'd try and sit as close to the water as possible and had a leash around each boy's waist. Chasing waves, kids, etc. they can get lost and wander very easily. After about a week I was not the only mother doing this and the kids did NOT mind....

[Fleshdancer]

8. I don't see how leashing kids teaches them how to behave in public

Not walking/running away from a parent is one of the many lessons kids need to learn and I don't see how a leash teaches them this. Plus it just looks wrong to me. Leashes are for pets, not inexperienced humans. Well, I guess they could be for S&M too, but that's not my thing. Hopefully those leashes don't have monkeys on them though. That would be weird.

[Posteritatis]

9. I've seen a couple in my neck of the woods with collars instead of harnesses

That pissed me right off in any case.

[Touchdown]

12. I've seen that too, but they were usually on adults in gay bars.

:evilgrin:

[FedUpWithIt All]

18. Collars? On children?

I cannot imagine that would be an easy sell given most child products are pretty serious about choking issues.

[Posteritatis]

36. Indeed

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'parents' made them themselves or something. (I sorta hope they did, because basically God help us all if some company out there was successfully selling such things.)

[cali]

28. yeah, but you don't want them to learn it by getting run over

my kid hated the stroller. he wanted to run everywhere and he didn't mind the harness at all. He never had the opportunity to learn about lights and busy streets because we lived in a very rural place. At the airport and in NY and London, the leash was great.

[Fleshdancer]

53. Fortunately my daughter didn't mind the stroller

So it sounds like I had a much easier time than you did when it comes to this subject.

I do have one story that pretty much contradicts my previous post though...

Once I was at the Chicago airport with Abby (I think she was around 3) and I stopped at the ATM. She was at my side as I took my wallet out, grabbed the card, pushed the buttons, etc. The moment the machine starts dispensing the cash, she decided to waddle/run away from me for no reason. Next thing I know, I'm doing this weird sideways shuffle between her and the ATM while screaming like a crazy woman trying to figure out what to grab first: My child, or my money and the check card which was still active in the machine for anyone to walk up and use. Fortunately someone was observant enough (and nice enough) to stop my daughter for me and I'm pretty sure she was a mom too because she was laughing while giving me that "been there, done that" look. Fun times.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. No gags and handcuffs for the little thugs?

[Sub Atomic]

15. Come on now. We don't need any more future Republicans!

[shraby]

11. I had 4 pre-schoolers at one time and these would

have been a god-send. Children that size can and do cover a lot of ground in the blink of an eye. Anything that will help rein them in helps cause once they disappear out of your sight, panic sets in immediately and it's much better than having one hit by a car or snatched or just plain lost. All I had to keep them in sight with was strollers (my Mom went shopping with me) and store carts.

[Touchdown]

14. Wouldn't they get tangled up with each other?

I was in a mall where a kid in one of these stopped me inbetween him and his mother. She said "Sorry."

:D

[shraby]

43. I would have risked it., They could have always been dis-

entangled.

[FedUpWithIt All]

17. I have four children and have no issue with people using the harnesses.

The world moves very fast and so do toddlers.

I remember following strangers, when i was very young, because they were wearing the same type of clothing as my mother. One time, when it happened in a small crowd, i lost my parents for more than a few minutes. It was very frightening and i have never forgotten it. The point is that it is not always an issue of bad behavior on the part of the child. A child has a limited scope and the parents are often, when in public, distracted by more than one thing at a time.

I have never used a harness, my older kids are now 11, 13 and nearly 18, but i have thought about them lately as my 2 yr old is ALL ENERGY and it takes a lot to keep him in one spot. I have always had pretty well behaved kids and when possible we always carted them but carts are not always an available option.

[NeedleCast]

19. If you need a leash to control your kids

You shouldn't have kids.

[Book Lover]

29. If you can't conceive of any situation where this is useful and necessary

you have a highly limited imagination.

My kid is autistic. We use a harness. Better than having him run into the street.

And if we didn't use the harness, we'd hear it from you people the other way too, since he'd be running around all over, bumping into people. There is no winning with the judgmental child-free.

[REP]

63. Hey, some of us childfrees are pro-leash! I had one as a kid!

That was before they were manufactured, over 40 years ago, so my mom made harnesses for my brother and me (we're 13 months apart in age). I don't remember them, but I've seen photos, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't scarred psychologically by my mother being able to run errands more easily.

I think they're a great idea - lets a kid roam and feel free without being able to wander off.

[NeedleCast]

74. I'l make exception to my statement for special needs kids

[Pool Hall Ace]

75. Childfrees can have an opinion on this, too.

I remember being in a store at the local shopping "maul" once, and there was a girl who was just a tiny thing, but she took off like a rocket out into the concourse area. Her mom grabbed her, but that was the first time I realized that even little kids can scoot pretty quickly.

My brother and his wife used to keep their son on a leash when he was around water. As long as parents aren't using a restraint in lieu of ever teaching the child the importance of listening to mom and dad, not approaching strangers, etc., I don't give this a second thought.

Now, the other day, I saw my neighbor driving up the street in her convertible (top was down) and into the garage with her 9-year-old daughter standing up in the passenger side. Now that -- that was stupid. Leashes are not.

[BlueIris]

92. Now, now--everyone knows Child Free people are worthless. What do we know about anything?

I don't like these harnesses, (think they look degrading to kids) but I can see how they would be helpful for some children in some situations.

[REP]

250. We ARE horrible

Everytime I do something for my friend's 4th grade classroom, I tell her to keep it on th DL so I won't lose my childhating street cred.

As I said above, tethers seem to give the kid some freedom yet keep them within the parents' orbit, which seems good - prevents collisions from childblitz, parents keep a hand or so free, and kids are less likely to wander and get lost, which can be scary for parents and kids, even if it's just for a few moments.

[cali]

30. bullshit. just out of curiosity, do you have kids?

[NeedleCast]

76. No, have no desire for them

The OP asked a question. I gave my answer. Not only is it demeaning, I think it's a sign that parents have no clue what they're doing.

Its amazing that most children are allowed to roam leash-free in airports, shopping malls, grocery stores, parks and beaches...and almost all of the manage to not get killed, maimed, seriously injured or snatched. If 99.5% of the population can pull it off, I'm confident everyone can.

[cali]

99. and I didn't want my kid to be the one who was snatched

typical that people like you who don't have children, know nothing about it, are stupidly condemning what you know jackshit about.

[NeedleCast]

230. Statistically speaking, the chance of your child being "snatched"

are so low that they might as well be zero. Its far more likely a relative or someone you know is going to take them and that's not something a leash is going to prevent.

eyeroll.jpg at your assertation that people whithout children shouldn't have an opinion on this subject.

Part of development is understanding how to react to panic/danger situtations. Its not a very fun experience when it happens, but if it never happens as a child, you end up with adults unable to cope with anything.

Great for therapists though.

[HuckleB]

248. +1

[JerseygirlCT]

48. I think it's less about controlling kids

(as if they're misbehaving) as about knowing they're safe. It takes seconds for a small one to let go of your hand and disappear in a crowd. Not because they're being bad, just because they're trusting kids.

I never used one, but I wouldn't be so quick to denigrate someone who did.

[Still Blue in PDX]

60. Kids don't emerge from the womb fully trained, no matter how good a parent you are.

Not many normal healthy 2-year-olds have perfect impulse control.

[NeedleCast]

83. I'm sure that's true

but for 40,000 years of recorded human history we've been able to keep a large majority of them alive without leashes.

[Still Blue in PDX]

95. For most of those 40,000 years people lived in tribal societies.

Kids had grandmas and aunties helping look out for them, and they didn't frequent places like airports, Disneyland, and Costco.

[FedUpWithIt All]

226. And in place of "leashes" there have been countless other restraint devices used throughout history.

The modern restraints (ie. leashes) offer a little more freedom for a child than the more historically common child restraint methods of stroller, papoose, carrier, snuggly, pram, slings, packs, push chair, travois, cradleboard...

One of the most common baby product is a stroller, which limits a child's movement and as a result a great number of LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES. The ancestor of the stroller, the modern pram was created in the 1700's. Other methods have been used for the majority of the 40,000 years that you have mentioned with references to carrier slings even being found in Egyptian artwork.

[winyanstaz]

93. You shouldn't be judging people without walking in their shoes...

Try keeping an autistic child, a bi-polar child and a toddler all in one place when they all take off in different directions sometime.
My poor sister in law had to use a leash or lose the kids in crowds because they were so hard to control.
Not every child will always mind.

[Duer 157099]

20. I don't see what the big deal is. A mother holder her child's hand

is effectively the same thing, so how in the world is there anything wrong with this?

[LiberalArkie]

21. I am old enough to remember no car seats or seat belts in cars.

I had a friend who had made a simple harness with a 3 ft leash on it hooked to a clothes rod hanging on the anchors in the back seat of his big huge car. His boy had the habit of grabbing the stick shift of the car. So the harness allowed him to play in the back seat safely.

[Odin2005]

23. I find those things disturbing.

A child is not a pet, it is a human being.

[cali]

32. you don't have kids, so you really aren't qualified to comment

[Odin2005]

34. I have young relatives. I used to work at a daycare. I'm allowed to have an an opinion.

[BuddhaGirl]

121. you're allowed an opinion

but keep in mind that it could change if you ever have toddlers who liked to roam. Once my little brother could walk (we were 11 1/2 mos. apart in age) he was off like a shot. Thus mom had to use a harness on him when we were all out together.

[TommyO]

101. Ah, such dismissal of those who don't have children

How does this fly: Your having children disqualifies you from commenting on those who don't have children?

[HuckleB]

122. Baloney.

I'm a parent, and I know at least a few people without kids who have more perspective on parenting than some parents.

[undeterred]

211. Wow, just wow.

:popcorn:

[EFerrari]

67. Excuse me. My pets are human, too!

lol

:hi:

[cali]

24. I used one until my son was four

not at home, but when we went to a city and I used it to teach him how to ski starting at 16 months!

[madmom]

27. I know this will not go over well because of the fact that it's based on

a TV show BUT, if anyone saw Criminal Minds last week, you would see where these could be a good thing. The premise was people were snatching kids. They had one person work as a distraction for the parent/guardian, by screaming for help, and the other came up and snatched the kid. Could happen:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

37. Meh. A lot of things on TV "could" happen. (nt)

[HuckleB]

55. Reality CHECK!

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4418620.ece

[madmom]

102. Several years ago, my daughter and a couple of her friends were appalled at seeing

young kids (under 5 years old) running loose in stores and malls etc. They made up some stickers and notes to give to some of these kids who were exceptionally "free". The note said.."what would you have done if I was a kidnapper" and told the kid to give it to their parent/guardian. Don't know if anything ever came of it, but if it woke up one parent it worked.

[HuckleB]

103. So your kids caused undo fear for parents and kids.

That's some sick stuff. Why did you let them cause baseless fear?

Ugh.

:mad:

[madmom]

136. I don't think it was baseless fear at all. It maybe opened they eyes of some

parents that they should be keeping a closer eye on their kids. What if it WAS a kidnapper? These things DO happen ya know. If it would have been me who got the note, I would have been grateful. To each his own I guess.:shrug:

[HuckleB]

143. Except that in the real world it was a baseless fear.

You should never have let your child promote the fear industry in that way.

[madmom]

152. If someone can go up to a child and hand them a note, and the parent/guardian doesn't

see it, they should be afraid! What if it WAS a kidnapper?

[HuckleB]

159. You really watch too much TV.

WOW!

:wow:

Seriously, educate yourself.

[madmom]

170. What has that got to do with watching TV? These things do happen, not everyday, but they

do happen. Why take that chance that your kid will be the one taken? Just pay attention, you take your kid out, you are responsible for their safety. Take off your rose colored glasses there are pervs out there. And just because I have a different opinion than you I need to educate myself? I see, that tells me a LOT!

[HuckleB]

171. Do you put children in cars?

If you do, then you are putting them at far more risk than a mother or father who lets her or his children run around a store.

Comprende?

I'm not living with rose colored glasses. I live in reality. You live in fear. Fear is not a good place to grow up.

[madmom]

177. Yes and I also put them in seat belts or car seats. I don't live in fear, I live in a

world were shit happens, not always, but it does happen. Just because I don't let my kids run amok means I'm living in fear? You are too funny!:rofl:

[HuckleB]

184. Even with safety features, that's one of the most dangerous things parents do.

And yet you use TV shows to spread baseless fear about things that are very unlikely to happen. You live in so much fear that you taught your kids to freak out if they see a kid in public who is not right next to his or parent. Then you allowed them to spread more fear. You have made it very clear that you live in fear. Laugh all you want. It won't change your "reality."

Wake up.

[madmom]

188. First off you can yell till you blue about me living in fear, it doesn't make it so. I did not

spread fear based on a TV show, I just compared it to what could happen. Who said my kids "freak out" in public? only you. My reality is just fine. I will live my life my way. You go run amok with your kids, hope they stay safe. I'm done.:eyes:

[HuckleB]

190. Yes, you did.

On this very thread. You used a TV show and the "it could happen" routine. That is spreading fear. You can deny it all you want, but that change what you did. It also doesn't change the fact that you bragged about allowing your kids to spread fear, on top of this.

Your ludicrous "let your kids run amok" comment says it all. You can't actually look at the real world. You are living in fear. Your responses and actions are classic for fear-based parents in this day and age. Denial doesn't change that.

[madmom]

197. GOOD BYE SIR, I will not have a conversation with a closed minded individual. I'M DONE!

[HuckleB]

199. That's hilarious.

I'm not the one who is closed minded here. Please look in the mirror. You have chosen to stick to your baseless fears without as much as a look at the information that shows the baseless nature of your fears.

That is the definition of closed minded.

[Silent3]

205. You're confusing that something *could* happen with the risk of it happening.

A child could be hit by a meteor falling out of the sky, but that isn't a good excuse to make them carry concrete umbrellas.

You ask "Why take that chance that your kid will be the one taken?" Why? Because sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Why take your kid to a shopping mall at all? What about the risk of the kid being killed in a car accident on the way to the mall with you? That's not likely, but it's much MUCH likelier than a child abduction. Why don't you ask yourself the "What if he/she is THE ONE?" about that risk?

[haele]

216. Should they have given the kid a note for the parent saying "what if I had wandered

in the parking lot and got hit by a car?"

About 11 years ago, I was entering a mall parking lot when I saw a two or so year old crossing the road (pretty quickly, too) and wandering in the lot a few rows down; no adult around. By the time I parked and headed in that area to check on the situation, he had been hit by some poor old lady who had been backing out of her handicapped spot, and mom was there with two tweeners, screaming at the driver for not seeing "her baby".
The kid was banged up some, but not too badly; it was ambulances all around because the old lady also had a seizure of some sort from the shock of the situation. I stuck around to tell the cops what I had seen.
Apparently, mom and the other kids were fussing with packages on the way back to the car, and the boy had just took off when there was no attention on him.
A leash would have at least kept him from running off.

BTW, at 16 months until he was about three, my little brother was a runner and a very loud screamer whenever he was belted into the stroller. My parents always tried to ensure that they were both around whenever we went out as a family and always tried to have his hand held or in a stroller, but there were still a few times - once up to an hour, with the police called to start up a missing child report - when he would just jump out of the stroller and disappear. And all it took was a second; I remember one time when dad (who had my hand) asked "what do you think about this? (I think it was shoes)"; mom with the stroller shifted her attention for a few seconds - and Rob was off and heading for the coat rack.
They finally got him on a six foot harness and leash, and he was much, much happier on the leash than he was belted in the stroller.
Jokes were no problem to them by that point; they had a happy, laughing baby on a leash, instead of a red-faced, screaming banshee belted in a stroller.

Haele

[HuckleB]

224. Thanks for the unverifiable anecdote.

Funny thing about those is that there are more of those on the Internet than such incidents in the real world. Danger exists. No one is denying that. However, causing undo fear, without taking a look at the actual risks is sick.

[haele]

239. I "see" your point, but here's the problem - why are young toddlers - not "kids" -

but babies who are just ambulatory - in a situation where a stranger could go up to them in a crowded, uncontrolled, unmonitored area and hand a two year old a note without a caretaker noticing.(and I don't mean in an area like the "Chuck-e-Cheez" ball cage or a monitored neighborhood play area, where there was always some parent around to watch the kids.)
I'm also talking about babies who are at the developmental stage that they don't know "hot means hurt" and other than a few simple words, usually understand only the tone, not three year olds who have more than a rudimentary vocabulary and are starting to understand more complex subjects.

Risk is risk - one of the things I work at is minimizing risk. And babies that are runners, or parents who are much too easily "distracted" increase the risk. If you want studies and news articles, I'm sure someone with a lot more time on their hands could provide you with studies on stranger snatching, or toddlers running out into the street - not just the numbers, but contributing factors for the increase or decline. And from what I have read, including those studies you provide, part of the increase in safety to very young children is the awareness of risk, and the increase in safer "in public" transportation (strollers and car seats that are more difficult to unlatch, etc) that is available to the parent.

My opinion (equally valid as you and your opinion) public safety of children is up to the parents as the community at large. If someone in the community sees a child's action contributing to increasing risk of danger to his/herself or others (or of damage or disruption), they should call the parent on it. Hopefully, not in a snotty or "scary" manner, but the parent should be aware that as well as the potential for hurting themselves or tripping up and hurting other shoppers who might not have been paying attention to someone who is only a little above knee-high, their unsupervised little darling might be running around damaging other people's property or making items un-sell-able during their "journey of discovery" at the mall.

As for handing a card out, it should be a wake-up call for them to consider that their more rambunctious toddler might be in more risk than one that is equally curious and brave, but more likely to be aware of where the boundaries are. Especially if some nosy, fear-mongering stranger can come up to their child and hand them a note without them noticing.

I think it comes down to this - it's just as valid for you to sneer at people encouraging parents for putting their babies in a harness as a last resort as "nanny-state fear-mongering" as it is for someone to point out to the parents who let their babies run around that maybe they should be paying attention to the little darlings if they want to mitigate risk to that baby and those around it.


Haele

[HuckleB]

245. You can't protect from every last possibility without doing more damage.

The fact that kids are no longer out in many neighborhoods, including very safe ones, ought to give pause to anyone who ponders the necessity of the child safety industry.

[haele]

251. So what damage is inflicted in putting a harness on a baby that likes to run?

The baby has a range of movement, can still be curious and the parent can have a modicum of control.
If you want to put a three or four year old in a harness, then you might possibly do some damage to the child's self esteem if you don't handle it right - because of their level of relative ego development to the outside world and how they relate to it. Which is easy enough to fix - like my parents did, they made it a game.
When Rob was old enough to start understanding action and reward and stop bolting whenever he saw something he wanted - I think he was around 3 years, the leash was never seen again.
A baby of up to 28 months or so - they're just starting to seperate classes of adults beyond caretaker, good person, and bad person.

Overconcern on this sort of "protection" smacks of the warnings parents used to get about toilet training at the wrong time of development causing sexual deviency.

Haele

[HuckleB]

253. Did I say any damage would be done by a harness?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The overuse of strollers, with kids in them up to age 5, is out of hand.

[haele]

254. So we're arguing about nits on the same side of the argument?

It's all about the risk factors. Yes, you have helicopter parents who will baby children past toddler-hood - heck, I knew one woman who was breast-feeding her three and a half year old, which even the most "natural" cultures don't do.
But argue the age appropriateness, not a blanket "don't leash the baby". I have a feeling you don't like the idea of a leash (or even a stroller), but you don't have a baby that is more comfortable with a leash than a stroller or even holding momma's hands. And it's a bit duplicitous saying "I didn't say keeping a kid in a harness causes damage" when your whole argument in this thread has been that putting a toddler in a harness is a sign of modern 'fraidy parents and apparently that fear causes serious damage to a developing child.

BTW, in the 16th through 19th century, they called them "leading strings" - and children would wear them even in the house when they strayed out of the nursery.

http://www.boughtonhouse.org.uk/htm/tour/child_leadingstringspick.htm

They were generally used on very young children in the 18 month to 3 year old stage to support them (keep them upright) and keep them from straying too far while they were still learning their way around in more adult clothes, which at the time were long and easy to trip in.
You need to remember that until the '50's very young children usually weren't seen out of the house except for special occasions, like visits to relatives. Not to go out shopping, or to a show, or "just hanging out". The harness as we know it was developed to help the more nuclear family where there was no other family member - or help - that would stay at home and watch the small children, so everyone went out as a group.
And even then, harnesses were advertised for the very small, not for the three and four year olds.

It's nothing new - and certainly has not been based on over-active fear. When appropriate, it's more of a convenience, and in my opinion, it's still better than constantly yanking small arms up and hurting developing muscles to keep one's toddler near when holding the child's hand for control in public.

Yes,there are parents that would over-use them, but the majority of the cases - ancedotal, of course - the parents I knew that used them did so because they had a baby that was a runner.

Haele

[HuckleB]

255. We're arguing about your anecdote that pushes baseless fear.

And is in response to another poster who is pushing baseless fear, and even had her kids help with that.

[NeedleCast]

231. Ridiculous Argument

I could walk around outside at a ball game on a cloudy day and pass out notes saying "what would you have done if I were a lightning bolt." It's about as preventable and only marginally less likely.

Of course we live in an age where logic is being pushed asided in favor of knee-jerk reactions. I'd be a lot more likely for me to "snatch up" some jackasses kid for handing out notes like that and asking them to take me back to the parent that instructed them to do so, so I could address their passive-aggressive issues in person.

[HuckleB]

118. Watching TV and Feeling Terrified

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/watching-tv-and-feeling-terrified/

The Mean World Syndrome - Case Study: Child Abduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BhrNeSJSUE&feature=youtube_gdata

[madmom]

137. I am not one who doesn't/didn't let their kid out of my sight, that being said, there is

such thing as parents not paying close enough attention to their kids. When my kids were under 5 they did NOT venture out, to explore the neighborhood on their own. They stayed in their back yard and yes I did look out on them ever now and then. What's the harm? Gave me peace of mind, keep them out of harms way. You want to let your kids go, have at it, but don't tell me how to raise my kids.I got enough of that from fundy in-laws.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmom]

154. LOL, excuse me for having a different opinion than you. Who is the mature one here? I

thought in America we were free to have different opinions and lifestyles. Sorry must have accidentally logged onto the freep site. :eyes: How about you go ahead and raise your kid your way and I'll do the same, even use a leash if I want.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmom]

163. How do you know it is fiction to me? Just because you have

a happy-go-lucky world doesn't mean the rest of us do. So why don't you go play in traffic it really is safe there ya know!

[HuckleB]

172. Nice red herring response.

I have offered the real world evidence to you. You've offered fear, and you've conned some DU moderator into deleting posts that in no way actually break the rules. I find all of that to be very sad.

If you have the courage to be a parent based in reality instead of fear, start by reading the links here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7856870

[madmom]

175. I have the courage to be a real parent without having to have someone I don't know

tell me how. Parenting takes a lot of work, you raise your kids according to your own personal lifestyle. If you want to let your kids run around unsupervised that is your prerogative.

"you've conned some DU moderator into deleting posts that in no way actually break the rules. I find all of that to be very sad." I had absolutely nothing to do with that at all. Don't blame me for someone getting themselves tomb-stoned.

I find it very sad that you think that you way is right and is the only way of doing something.You do your thing your way and I'll do mine my way. None of my kids are in jail, not institutionalized, not in therapy, not drugged up,and not hiding in the basement, they are both in college and on the dean's list. So apparently something was done right.

[HuckleB]

191. BS.

You've allowed TV and other baseless fears to run how you parent. You refuse to have the courage to look at world from a basis of reality. The damage that fear-based parenting has done to childhood is not to be ignored. You can make all the excuses you want. You can be as angry as want. That's your right. It's also my right to call your basis for parenting exactly what it is.

Courage is about challenging yourself. You've not shown that ability, despite being given evidence that a courageous person would use to challenge him or herself.

Here is some more:

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/myth-11-you-should-tell-your-kids-about-stranger-danger/

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/myth-2-kidnappers-are-usually-strangers/

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/myth-25-social-networking-sites-are-crawling-with-predators/

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/smart-moms-go-underground/

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/myth-26-better-safe-than-sorry-is-rational-thinking/

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/myth-28-children-get-poisoned-on-halloween/

http://web.mac.com/warwickcairns/Site/Home.html

http://www.carlhonore.com/

http://www.heleneguldberg.co.uk/index.php/site/about/3/

[Moochy]

185. Terrified Mothers are 33% more likely to buy Tide with Bleach Alternative!

[The Gunslinger]

218. And the show 24 makes torture look like a good thing..

[NoSheep]

31. I'm not a parent either...but I know you cannot always be in a safe place or get a sitter-you may

need something like this. It would depend upon the situation and the child.

[Touchdown]

58. As a fellow non-parent, I have to wonder about the line limit.

Say a boy sees another, and runs up to him to start a fight, and hits the end of the line and is yanked back and falls on his butt. Then he quickly gets back up and charges again. Does the parent continue to yank back as both boys are snarling and bearing teeth at each other, saying "Down Boy!"?

;)

I know, bad taste. But just from observance, toddlers do run off and could be anywhere within seconds. I remember waiting for my flight one time. There was this little boy, maybe 3 or so, who just had to walk up and introduce himself to everybody sitting at the gate. Friendly little kid, but he put his hands on my leg and those hands looked like he just finished a whole box of Oreos (yeah, I know. Parents are used to that, but we're not). Anyhow, all his mother said was "Honey! Come sit down. Honey, come sit down. Honey, come sit down. Repeat x10". He wasn't really bothering anybody... much, but he was definitely ignoring his mother, who didn't seem too interested in making him listen... or clean.

[lunatica]

33. Nowadays I think they're great. But that's because it takes only seconds

for someone to abduct a kid. We live in dangerous times now.

[HuckleB]

52. Hogwash.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4418620.ece

[EFerrari]

65. Not at all.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/timeline/flash.html

[HuckleB]

104. More hogwash!

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/george-stephanopoulos-spinmeister-gets-spun/

[NeedleCast]

78. No, we don't

We live in incredibly safe times.

Don't let that squelch your fear though.

[lunatica]

105. LOL!

You forgot your sarcasm smiley

[HuckleB]

106. Newsflash.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/05/04/free_range_kids/

[lunatica]

108. Lenore Skenazy is stating her own opinion and bases it on nothing

other than her own opinion.

You might think she's some sort of professional researcher on the subject but I don't find any evidence in your link. Instigating a kerfuffle about contemporary parenting to justify her irresponsible endangering of her 9 year old son is not my idea of good parenting.

But you're entitled to believe whatever suits your world view.

[HuckleB]

110. Wrong.

She has repeatedly provided the real data on the issue. You clearly didn't even read the piece, and you haven't read anything else on the matter, either. If you love to be scared, that's your choice, but trying to push your feat onto others is ludicrous.

Child abduction cases by strangers are rare
http://oaklandnorth.net/2009/08/14/child-abduction-cases-by-strangers-are-rare/

The Mean World Syndrome - Case Study: Child Abductions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BhrNeSJSUE&feature=youtube_gdata

Watching TV and Feeling Terrified
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/watching-tv-and-feeling-terrified/

[lunatica]

111. Well by all means let your children and grandchildren take their chances

It's still somewhat of a free country. For my part I base my worries on personal experience as a child. But I'm sure your childhood was much more real than mine.

[HuckleB]

112. Ah, yes, go with the unverifiable anecdote rather than looking at the real world.

:eyes:

Seriously, inform yourself. Are you afraid of taking a real look at the basis, and the lack thereof, of your fears?

I can only presume that you never put your kids in an automobile.

[lunatica]

119. You presume? You know nothing about me

[HuckleB]

120. Your posts indicate a great deal.

If you are terrified of risk for your kids, why would you ever put them in an automobile?

[BuddhaGirl]

123. reapeatedly posting links to back up your opinion

on this issue may be the "real world" for you.

But for other parents - their "real world" is what they deem is the BEST way for them to keep their children safe...if that means keeping a child on a harness, so what. If it offends your sensibilities, don't look at it.

[HuckleB]

141. I'm not arguing against harnesses.

Try responding to the actual content of my posts.

I am arguing against BS posts that pretend the world is more scary now than it was in the past. Further, my links are given to show that ridiculous fears and anecdotes are a ludicrous way for any parent to make decisions about parenting. Do you really want to bring kids up afraid of the world?

[BuddhaGirl]

151. let me re-word this

the links you are posting are backing up *your* opinion of how dangerous the world currently is for children. That is your perception.

A parent may not share *your* perception. Everyone has their *own* perceptions. You also are calling their fears "ridiculous." Again, that is merely opinion on your part. What don't you get about that??

[HuckleB]

158. In other words, you don't care about the real world.

Got it.

Keep letting the fear-based MSM push your buttons.

[BuddhaGirl]

162. in other words

you don't understand about opinions/perceptions...not everyone shares your beliefs. It's really a fundamental concept that you'll maybe learn one day :hi:

[HuckleB]

168. Beliefs should have a basis in reality.

Going blah blah blah about individual's beliefs is pointless. Why bother having a discussion board like DU at all?

If you care about evidence, and about bringing up kids in the real world, rather than a world based in baseless fear, start by reading some of the links here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7856870

[BuddhaGirl]

173. the important thing to remember

is that your version of the "real world" is not everyone else's version of the "real world."

"Fear" is subjective. Ever heard of "YMMV?"

[HuckleB]

174. Fear is used to control people.

Apparently, you have no problem with that.

[BuddhaGirl]

176. again -

Whatever situations people *Fear* - it's a very subjective experience. Thus posting links espousing "opinions" on how safe/fear-filled the world is is and telling people they raise their OWN children by those (and your)opinion is pointless.

But you seem to like beating people over the head with it all...so have fun. You don't seem to understand people very well.

[HuckleB]

181. Again, there is a way to know what the risks are in reality.

Your claim about subjectivity ignores this and is simply a claim that says you want to ignore reality, and you want to give propagandists a free pass.

[BuddhaGirl]

193. LOL

lot of projection there...as I said, you don't seem to know a lot about people.

[HuckleB]

195. Talk about projection.

WOW!

:wow:

Your responses are nothing but baseless attacks against me. You have completely ignored any and all information I've given. You've tried to do nothing but make excuses for behavior that is pushed by fear mongers.

Wake up.

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/myth-11... /

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/myth-2-... /

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/myth-25... /

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/smart-m... /

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/myth-26... /

http://mommymythbuster.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/myth-28... /

http://web.mac.com/warwickcairns/Site/Home.html

http://www.carlhonore.com /

http://www.heleneguldberg.co.uk/index.php/site/about/3/

[BuddhaGirl]

198. yes, I have ignored it because posting

tons of links as you've done all over this thread does not prove your opinion, it's spam.

Beating people over the head with all of your "proof" doesn't work. :eyes:

[HuckleB]

200. Spam is repeating your need to live in fear with no evidence to back up that need.

Evidence is meaningful. Apparently you would rather believe lies and live in fear. It's your choice to ignore the evidence and "live" in a world that does not exist. But that's not a place most people I know would choose to live, given the evidence. Why do you prefer to live in baseless fear? And why would you want anyone's kids to live in that world?

[BuddhaGirl]

203. whole lotta projection goin' on

you do not know me, you don't know anyone on this thread, yet you want to tell us how to live?? That's what fundamentalists like to do.

Yeah, right :eyes:

[HuckleB]

204. Yes, a lot of projection from you.

What I've posted is in response to what you've posted. You choose to ignore evidence. I pointed that out. Etc... Calling me a fundamentalist doesn't do that. It just shows that you're the one who is projecting. Interestingly, you are excusing the fear-mongers, who are much more like fundamentalists than those of us who are fighting against their baseless scare tactics.

[Silent3]

212. There's a difference between knowing a lot about people...

...and automatically catering to what you know about them.

There is such a thing as irrational and excessive fear. In fact, it's a fairly common thing. That it is common, however, doesn't make it any more rationale or excusable, just more understandable.

[Silent3]

207. Fear may be subjective, but actual risks aren't.

The odds of being struck by lightning, last time I heard, were about 1 in 600,000. Being more afraid of lighting than another person might change how quickly you run inside when there's a storm, but it doesn't change the actual risk of a lighting strike a great deal.

Telling someone an objective risk is not "telling them how to live their lives". If a person spends their lives paralyzed by fear of being struck by lighting, however, trying to shake that person out of their excessive fear so they can enjoy more of life, and so that perhaps they don't pass their irrational fear onto their children, is a good thing to do -- not an oppressive, meddling, controlling imposition, which is how some people act whenever you try to rock their boats with a little information they don't want to hear.

It's not like I don't know what irrational fear is. I'm really creeped out by spiders myself. But I know that's an irrational fear, and I wouldn't get on my high horse and defend stupidly excessive behavior designed to avoid any possible contact with spiders, or act as if a person telling me the very low odds of death or illness via spider bites doesn't know what he or she is talking about just because their facts don't line up with my irrational fear.

It is an objective fact that children today in the US live very safe lives, compared to different times and different places. You have every "right" to be scared silly, if that's what you prefer, that horrible danger to your children lurks around every corner, but your fear doesn't make it so. I have every right, in a public forum, to comment and say such fear is irrational and likely more harmful than the risks that such fear may or may not actually help you avoid.

[L0oniX]

35. Need a muzzle silencer too.

[Dappleganger]

38. Didn't believe in them till I had boys.

Of course our kids are way older now, but our oldest could slip out of my hand grip lickety-split and loved to hide amidst the clothing racks. It was all a game to him, while I would search for him in a panic.

Dangit, kids are fast and if I'm going to use a leash on a dog who's not quite trained to stay w/me there sure as heck isn't anything wrong w/using extra measures to keep your young'un attached to you.

[slampoet]

39. I always say "What a cute little puppy you have..."

When i see these. It gets the point across without the child picking up on it.

[seabeyond]

40. i dont have issue with it. would never restrict kids in that manner. hated strollers.

i was always one to allow little one to walk and explore and go along at their pace. when i had to get things done, we did it. plenty of freedom allows rules to be followed more easily when needed. if a person wants this for child, not a problem though. and have thought about, even when i had little ones

[MineralMan]

42. Back in 1947, my mom put me on a harness and leash in public. I was

a very curious kid and would take off suddenly to look at anything interesting. It worked very well, and probably kept me from running out into the street. She didn't have to hold me with my arm stretched upwards, and i had some good freedom of motion. In 1949, I turned 4 years old and that went away, because I was able to understand limits.

[nonconformist]

44. I don't know how I feel about them. I admit I usually do a double-take when I see them

And I've seen some parents use them to strongly jerk their kids around, which I don't like at all.

I have three rambunctious boys, but I've never used a harness.

[Celebration]

45. great topic!!

My grandson can literally shoot out the automatic door at Walgreen's, in an instant. He is much too big to carry. I have seen people SPEED through the parking lot at Walgreen's.

Case closed.

Oh, except, my daughter doesn't "believe" in harnesses. :eyes:

Yes, every time I am home when she goes to the drugstore, she drops him off at my house. :)

[Celebration]

46. great topic!

My grandson can literally shoot out the automatic door at Walgreen's, in an instant. He is much too big to carry. I have seen people SPEED through the parking lot at Walgreen's.

Case closed.

Oh, except, my daughter doesn't "believe" in harnesses. :eyes:

Yes, every time I am home when she goes to the drugstore, she drops him off at my house. :)

[keroro gunsou]

71. he's so fast

you posted twice... or he was racing by so fast he warped time on you... :D kids these days...

[JerseygirlCT]

47. I definitely remember thinking about one when my oldest was

small. He was a very friendly little guy - totally happy and trusting, and eager to go running off wherever we were. Bringing him to the mall was scary - even in our fairly tame, suburban mall. He was at that stage that holding a parent's hand felt constricting - he was a big boy!

Strangely, my younger, who is generally more active and independent, usually was content to hold my hand as long as we were walking...

[Brickbat]

49. I don't like them, and taught my kids in such a way that I never needed them.

I do understand they could be useful for kids who have poor impulse control. Mine generally did not.

[GoneOffShore]

54. A good idea - especially until they're socialized.

:hide:

[EFerrari]

66. LOL -- with maybe a refresher course between 14 and 18.

:rofl:

[GoneOffShore]

166. Ah, though I think the harness needs to be attached elsewhere.

[lonestarnot]

56. Thought I'd check out one of those deals once when my kid was that age. LOL He pitched such a damn

fit, I took it off and threw it into the trash within 10 seconds use. :D End of that story.

[LWolf]

57. My youngest son escaped my mother twice at that age.

Once in the middle of the crowd crossing through the castle at Disneyland. He saw something interesting, jumped out of the stroller, and took off. If he hadn't had red hair, we might not have spotted him in the much taller crowd.

Once at Venice beach. She DID lose him that time; he was found by a local officer on patrol.

If they'd had them back then, I would have supplied her with one.

The first time I saw a "leash" on a child, I was offended. But, thinking about it, I know that children that age don't like restraint, and a stroller or being carried or holding a hand right next to an adult is more restraint than that.

It's not like they're a new idea, lol.

[Still Blue in PDX]

59. I think they are great.

I remember hating holding my arm up for hours so my mom could clutch my hand when I was a child and being very intrigued when I saw a little boy with a harness and a leash.

[EFerrari]

61. I think it's a great idea. A half step between stroller and at large.

[Still Blue in PDX]

96. "At large."

:rofl:

Spoken like someone who actually does know children.

[EFerrari]

129. Welcome to DU, PDX!

:hi:

[Hekate]

68. Some kids need them. I had a friend whose parents got one for her after she ...

... decided to take a ferry ride and latched on to another family and just kind of merged with them. No one noticed she didn't "belong" to anybody on the ferry, and she was having a great old time. Her mom and dad, not so much. After that they got their little angel her very own leash.

It's no different (in results) than keeping toddlers confined to their strollers while in public, except with a leash they get to stretch their little legs.

Hekate

[EFerrari]

84. My first kid would never have left my side or his dad's.

The second one was hell on wheels long before he turned one. He never crawled, he went right to sprinting. lol

[Hekate]

94. Each kid is SO different...

My daughter's high school counselor threw us a lifeline one time by confessing that she and her husband thought they had this parenting thing down pat with their first three kids -- then # 4, a girl, turned out to be the wild card. The experience gave them a huge dose of humility and understanding about inborn personality traits.

Hekate

[aikoaiko]

77. My son loved his monkey. He would beg to have it on when we went out sometimes.

They're great ways of little little ones have a little room to roam in public, but still have the security of being connected.

[Maru Kitteh]

89. I hate those fucking things. Why not complete the ensemble with a muzzle and a flea collar w/ tags?

[mrs_p]

97. it's really none of my business

[BuddhaGirl]

128. +1

to each his own

[woo me with science]

98. They were required for todders on certain cruise ships, decades ago.

Not much room for error when it comes to falling overboard.

[TwilightGardener]

100. I couldn't quite bring myself to use one on my kids, but I can appreciate

their usefulness. Had my toddlers get away from me a few times, in stores and busy public areas--just lucky nothing bad happened.

[Arugula Latte]

126. That is the worst feeling. The worst.

One time my daughter, who was about two, was leaning up against me at a very crowded park/fountain on a very hot day. I could still feel the pressure of her body, and I thought she was leaning up against me, until I turned my head and looked. Gone. What was strange was I had been talking to my friend and she hadn't noticed that she'd left either. After frantically running around for what was probably two minutes but seemed like two hours, someone found her waaaay over by the playground. I think that incident took five years off my life, and I still feel sick when I think of it eight years later.

[EFerrari]

132. I took my eyes off of my son, about two as well, for two minutes

and he opened a door I thought was too heavy for him, went to the edge of an unenclosed deck overlooking a river and proceeded to rock in a rocking chair about two feet from the edge. The drop was at least a hundred feet. I thought I was going to have a heart attack. In the room with us were his dad, his grandmother, an aunt and an uncle. We were too busy talking or listening. They can be fast and so quiet.

Maybe a cowbell is a better idea! :)

[ensho]

107. my toddlers were taught to hold on to my jeans or skirt at all times

that way I could use both hands and could feel the child holding my clothes.

if they let go we had a forceful chat.

they learned quick and I had no problems.

this also caused the child to think and use restraint

[HuckleB]

146. And that should work for most kids, but ... not all.

[ensho]

187. true - if a toddler was untrainable, I'd use a harness

nt

[FedUpWithIt All]

227. This becomes very difficult with more than one young child.

When my older three were all very young at once i used a little game to keep them with me. We would play Mama Duck. Occasionally i would quack and they would respond in kind and they would naturally form a small line behind me when walking quacking the whole time.

The truth is that they were exceptionally good kids and would cooperate. I have a toddler now who likes to test everything, everytime. :shrug:

[LibertyLover]

109. When my daughter was younger I used something similar

when we were in a crowd - like at DisneyWorld. It made me feel better knowing that she couldn't run off in one of those displays of shear exuberance and curiosity that toddlers are wont to display and do something to herself like fall into a waterway or something. When I was a toddler my mom had a white leather harness and leash that she used when we went to New York City (we lived just across the river in NJ so we went often). I remember liking to pretend I was a horse in harness. I certainly wouldn't use one now that she is 7, but when she was a toddler, in certain situations - not a problem.

[TransitJohn]

113. Hopefully that kid never drinks from the hose!

The horrors!

[HuckleB]

115. +1

[devilgrrl]

114. My aunt leashed my older brother a few times - back in the early 60's!

Otherwise he'd wander off without saying anything. He grew up to be a libertarian douchebag, so some with reservations may have a point!

[EFerrari]

130. LOL

[asdjrocky]

116. If my mom tried to put one of those on me when I was a wee lad-

I would have ripped her poor arm off. At that age I've been told I stopped for nothing.

[buzzard]

124. Mine are in University now but I think they would have preferred to have their hands free rather

than held by mine, so no I don't see a problem with the harness for very young kids if safety is the concern, now if you were to tie them up in the backyard like this that is a different thing.

[Arugula Latte]

125. For ccertain young kids at a certain stage for a limited amount of time I think they're fine.

There are some toddlers/preschoolers who are just prone to darting off heedlessly. In an airport or in a busy street situation, I think it makes sense. No matter how diligent a parent you are, EVERY parent has experienced that sickening stomach drop of "I took my eyes of my kid for three seconds ... where the hell did s/he go?" That is a downright terrifying feeling if you are out in a public place.

[Lorien]

127. They're essential for some kids at theme parks

I used to work for the House of Mouse and spent many a lunch break taking walks through our theme parks-often ending up with a small lost toddler at the "lost and found". I'd find them wandering in crowds sobbing with fear. I'd look for their parents and so often couldn't find them and had to drag the tiny terrified child a quarter mile or more to the front gate of the park. A leash would have prevented all that! The parks are crowded, there are loads of distractions, and kids disappear in a blink of an eye. Leashes are an excellent idea in those situations.

[whistler162]

133. Lot more comfortable than the ones my mom

used on me and my 13 month younger brother back in the day.

[elleng]

134. I don't like them; never had a boy so little need.

If they demean anyone, I think its the parents! KIDS ARE KIDS!

[dustbunnie]

135. My mother had me in one of those harnesses and I still remember it perfectly.

I was too young to know that I was supposed to find it demeaning, so it was actually kind of fun. Wearing it was a game, where I pretended I was a beloved fictional character like Black Beauty. Sometimes I would entertain myself by tug-boating my Mom where *I wanted to go.

I also had non-losable mittens that attached one end to the other by looping through my coat sleeves, and somehow these didn't interfere with my cognitive development or self-esteem either. :)

[EFerrari]

139. Black Beauty was real!

:)

[dysfunctional press]

140. shock collars are a much better bet.

up the voltage!

[mainer]

147. Almost lost my son when he ran into the street.

He was chasing a leaf. Just dashed out between two parked cars, and I barely managed to grab him by his osh-kosh strap before he was hit by a car.

So I have no argument with parents who think they needs these leashes.

[yurbud]

149. I have mixed feelings. But shock collars and muzzles are way over the line as is neutering

[Hepburn]

153. Do they come with a matching muzzle?

:evilgrin:

[flvegan]

155. I have no opinion, considering the decision is up to the kid's parents.

I can see why a parent would use one, I can see why folks my be "offended" by the sight of them.

I will say this, there are many times when at the grocery that I'd wish a good number of the children I see running amok were on one.

[Jennicut]

156. I have two girls, ages 4 and 5. I have never onced used one of these.

It just seemed to be like I was watching parents walking their pets. Parenting is hard, it requires you to pay attention. But it can be done without a leash. I take my kids to school, ballet class, the grocery store, etc. without a leash. They hold my hands, I keep an eye on them at all times. But believe me, there are parents that don't pay attention at all. And I also have really calm girls. Some parents have kids who have crazy amounts of energy and I guess in that instance, I can understand using one.

[cali]

192. I had a dasher. and normally, living in such a rural environment

he was allowed to dash, but at a busy airport or in NY or London, I used the halter when he was 2 or 3. He seemed to like it fine and he hated strollers and didn't like having his hand clutched. This way he had hands free. Also they are FANTASTIC for teaching toddlers to ski. I had Tommy on skis at 16 months. I almost wish I hadn't. Now he's a 23 year old ski bum in CO.

[Jennicut]

208. Some kids don't like holding the hands. I can understand why some parents

have to use them. My kids like holding my hands but many kids don't like it. LOL about your son and the skiing. Vermont is the place for that, isn't? Living in CT, we were always told the best place to ski was Vermont. I have to take my kids sometime. We have already conquered lots of stuff in NH, on to VT.

[Gold Metal Flake]

161. What The Fuck Is Wrong With That Kid's Knee????!

It ain't supposed to bend that way!

[GoneOffShore]

167. Giraffe knee.

Common at that age.

[Shell Beau]

165. I can see how they are useful, but you will never find me

leashing my kid. Ever. Even today as I chased her around the Natural Science Museum...She loved being able to roam and discover on her own. I just had to be one step behind her. If it is too crowded for that, I have a stroller and a hip.

[guitar man]

186. I've got one of those for my daughter

The only time I ever use it is if we are going somewhere with large, high density crowds like a concert or something similar where she could get lost 5 feet away or less. I think I've used it a grand total of 3 or 4 times.

[ctaylors6]

232. I had one for my "runner"

One of my kids was so fast. I don't remember using the leash more than a few times. But she scared the hell out of me once and I bought it after that. I was in a store, holding her hand. She tore her hand out of mine and ran out of the store into the parking lot in what seemed like 8 seconds flat. She was little enough to get through spaces I couldn't. I also had my other young child with me.

I'll never criticize anyone who uses one of these. I've taught my children safety and manners, but even the best parents can be overcome in certain situations by a headstrong and speedy 3 year old.

She's a great athlete by the way. Fastest at the mile in her grade I think. :)

[NuttyFluffers]

206. kids are slippery suckers. even at your best, sometimes they just *gotta* touch something!

walking a kid around on a city street, even if you told them how to look both ways before they cross a street, can still be trying even with the most well behaved. there's always something to distract their attention, and one twist of a slippery hand in a sweaty palm and *poof* they are off. could it be chasing a ball into a street, picking up a coin behind a parked car starting to move, touching a dead pigeon, live rat, feral cat, or unleashed big dog, you never know. that's because they are kids, and they are absolutely ingenious in thwarting your attempts to control them. even your "perfect angel of a child" has its moments when it just must chase that ball, balloon, rolling coin, etc. -- and no one sane here is going to claim their kids are 100% perfectly behaved, never getting into potential danger.

... that's why there's plan C, the harness/leash. when behavioral training (plan A) and parental supervision (plan B) fail -- and there's always a potential in any system for failure -- that's what the extra backup plan is for.

so, what's so bad about having an alternate plan to protect your children/keep them in line? doesn't harm you none, beyond fragile sensibilities.

i'd rather parents fail on the side of caution than on the side of neglect.

[undeterred]

210. I love it when people bring infants in strollers into the dog park

because sometimes the dogs get hungry.

[Touchdown]

214. I'm reminded of Seinfeld when he asked Poppy about abortion and the whole restaurant exploded.

I start a thread about harnesses/leashes for kids, then people divide up into factions, fights break out on the levels of danger in modern society. Mass Mayhem and Discord!
... creating my first 200+ thread in 8 years.

... And it was pretty much all my fault!:D

[newportdadde]

229. Would depend on number of kids and location. My wife and I have 4 kids born in a 3 1/2 year span.

Our sons are still young, the oldest is 6, twins are 4 and our youngest is 2 1/2. My wife took them to the zoo yesterday and used one of these on our youngest a bit, not the whole time. A couple of years ago when we were at the zoo we had the oldest walking, the twins on leashes and the youngest in a stroller or hippack.

The zoo is really the only time we have ever used them, I would consider using them in airport though certainly or some other very busy crowded area.

[hedgehog]

233. Some kids don't like holding hands. This is a perfect option for that situation.

When my six were all ambulatory and I had a crowd between ages 2 and 13, they all stayed together and followed me through a store - the older ones bringing up the tail and helping to keep an eye on the younger ones. The only problem was that from time to time I'd check my count and find 7 kids, not 6. "Hey - did anyone notice when the black haired kid joined us?" I guess some little kids figured it looked like we were headed some place fun!

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

240. For very small children, yes!

For a certain period after they learn to walk and run, children are at the stage that my mom used to call, "All energy and no sense."

In other words, they will just zoom off after anything that strikes their fancy. This can include the end of a dock, a fancy vehicle going down the street, a dog that may or may not be friendly. If they're out in public and a responsible adult or teen can't be holding on all the time, they need to be either in a stroller or on a harness.

[Liberal_in_LA]

241. kid leashes have been around for decades. I was shocked when I 1st saw them, now understand

[walldude]

242. Personally I find those things repulsive.. but I'm not everyone and my kids

are not everyones kids.

That said, if I listened to every person who told me of the "dangers" my kids faced, they would never leave the house and if they did they would be so padded with helmets, padding, whistles, cell phones, and instructions they wouldn't be able to fucking move.

The world may be a dangerous place, but to live like an animal in a cage or on a leash is not living at all.

[Fire1]

243. These contraptions have been around since the 50's.

I think it's a good idea, myself. Couldn't find one when my child was little.

[izzybeans]

252. Like anything else the parent can decide for themselves. Breast-feeding or not, natural birth or not

, to leash or not to leash, to eat out and try to enjoy a small slice of life or not, etc.

No matter what your choice the moral whammmbulance will always be there to judge you. It's inescapable.

I didn't need to do this with my oldest so I can't relate. My newborn may be a different story. Time will tell.

[oldlib]

260. Speaking of Kids.

There is an interesting news item, today, regarding a 7 year old boy who called 911. He recognized that when 2 thieves burst into their home that they were in trouble. He took a cell phone and his little sister, and locked themselves in a bathroom. He called 911 and with difficulty described the circumstances to the operator. The thieves broke the bathroom door down and realized that the kid had called 911. They then left without further damage to the kids or the parents. This is a most rewarding story.