Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[magmaholic]

These things are terrible.

Tottaly agree with you

[Phmcw]

I don't like them because I don't like physical restraint for children. I'm not completely sure about it, though, because for me, anything at the end of a leach should be a dog and that that's "only" the mental image that come from the situation I know. If leach for kid have been around when I was a kid, maybe I'd think differently.

Don't like it but I'm not definitive about it.

[Starver]

I don't like them because I don't like physical restraint for children. I'm not completely sure about it, though, because for me, anything at the end of a leach should be a dog and that that's "only" the mental image that come from the situation I know. If leach for kid have been around when I was a kid, maybe I'd think differently.

Don't like it but I'm not definitive about it.

Putting leaches on children is definitely medieval and, if you do it, there will be blood lost!



(Sorry, unfair to pick up on an honest (if repeated) typo, but I've now got these mental images.)


To be fair, it's not so much a leash like one to a dog-collar around the neck which can be jerked to cause notable stress to the neck, it's either a more safety-harness-like construction to which a strap is attached and held by the parent which is very similar to what workers on high up on cranes/cradles/fruit-pickers might wear, the other end attached to the platform, that performs the same function as to retard any rapid departure from the "safe zone" of the platform/parent, or else it's just a "mutual strap", connecting parent's wrist/hand to the toddlers and effectively being hand-holding-by-proxy, meaning more freedom (and less back and tendon problems from the parent, who doesn't need to stoop or keep a constant grip that once lost is hard to regain).


But I firmly believe that there's a cultural divide insofar as between the dislike and don't-mind mindsets (with also a "necessary evil" group and an "I wouldn't, but why not?" one).  Much as some parents these days would never dream of letting their kid walk half a mile to school and need to take them in by car (in a cyclical and self-fulfilling need to protect their kid from all the rest of the cars zooming along the roads at the start of the school day), which is equivalent in some respects and the exact antithesis in others.

So some people have a "You what?!?!   You deep fry...  butter?  Deep fried butter on a stick???" reaction[1], while others consider it a right, if not a food-group in itself.  Or perhaps it's more toned down towards the "Mayonnaise on fries[2]" compared with "What else would you put on fries than mayonnaise?" argument.  Probably in-between.


[1] And having yet had to sample the delight of the (more or less home-grown) deep-fried Mars Bar, I am a world away from attempting the aforementioned delicacy, or any of its international equivalents like that pork-fat one from whichever bit or other of eastern Europe that has it...

[2] Noting that I really mean chips, anyway, but a lot of you who are reading this would interpret that as meaning what I call crisps.  Talk about separated by a common language, man...

[Willfor]

[1] And having yet had to sample the delight of the (more or less home-grown) deep-fried Mars Bar, I am a world away from attempting the aforementioned delicacy, or any of its international equivalents like that pork-fat one from whichever bit or other of eastern Europe that has it...

I've shared a deep-fried mars bar with my brother (I thought having one all to myself would be a little self-indulgent) and I quite enjoyed it.

[nenjin]

My parents always made me hold their hand when they were worried about me. My dad would quite deliberately place me in front of him while he had to use his hands to pay for stuff. I remember one time he actually took my arm and squeezed it between his knees while he was paying for something, as an alternative to making eye contact with me and reading me the riot act in front of the cashier.

I think that's a better way to teach your kid responsibility than by basically just teaching them that there's a leash preventing them from doing what they want to do. I think doing it probably made them better parents in the end too, because they could never ignore ME either. And I think that's what I dislike about the leashes the most. The image of a parent chatting away with someone while their kid throws themselves forward like a puppy. When my dog does that, I get my dog's attention and make them behave. In that regard, I don't think raising dogs and kids shouldn't be all that dissimilar. People that refuse to manage or discipline the dog the way they'd like them to behave create obnoxious, selfish, thoughtless dogs.

Then again, my parents also spanked the hell out of me for ignoring them and yelled to great effect, two things people say you're not supposed to do with dogs or kids anymore either. So who knows which is the lesser evil. What I do know is that Caeser Milan doesn't just put dogs on a leash and let them flop around....so...take that for what you will.

[Starver]

Taking that as a cue for a minor derail on the topic of dog behaviour, working away in my office, with an old podcast blaring away, I became aware of a loud voice coming from across the way in a copse of trees.  Turns out that young (20-something) aggressive bruiser of a guy with a young kid and one dog had a beef with a grey-haired guy (not decrepit, but certainly retirement age) about his control of the two dogs that he was walking, who had just used something like a dog whistle (very high pitched, but I could still hear it) to call them back to him.

I could only hear the younger guy's words, loudly berating the older guy for not keeping control of his two allegedly aggressive dogs.  From my view, they were bounding playfully around, and the only aggressiveness I could discern was the younger guy.  Perhaps justified in some anger if the bounding dogs had 'threatened' his kid, but whatever old guy was saying definitely wasn't placating young guy, and there were threats of breaking OG's dog's necks if he ever saw them again... "It's my right!"  (Probably bluster.)

I kept an eye on this.  It looked certain that the younger guy would punch the older guy, and while I couldn't get there quick enough to help/hinder as appropriate, I felt that it better that I could testify about how the situation unrolled if things quickly went south (one way or another).  When they got obscured by a building (could still hear YG, as I could even when he was facing away from me, but never heard anything from OG, whose body language didn't indicate any threat, but neither did he seem phased in the direction of fear, he'd probably done National Service and had wisdom not to up the ante), I rushed out and around to the path to 'casually' walk towards the argument, by which time the old guy had gone on up one path and the young guy and son were off up another, so I casually walked further on before doubling back and back into the office.

Not sure whether I reacted correctly.  (Should have rushed out earlier?  Shouldn't have risked getting into the same tussle, with three possibly unpredictable dogs and at least one probably unpredictable human?)

At the start of all of this, no-one was leashed, but the various dogs were in the process of being called back to their respective owners and ended up so.  At the end, the one creature I would have muzzled would have been YG.  The kid was... oh... something like 5 or 6yo, beyond any toddler-time that any such restraint would have been used anyway.

But, yes, that's all just one big derail given that even with that last-minute shoehorning of the subject at hand probably deserves being ignored, but it was something I think I more needed to get off of my chest than you needed to hear.  Probably best to ignore it.

[SalmonGod]

Then again, my parents also spanked the hell out of me for ignoring them and yelled to great effect, two things people say you're not supposed to do with dogs or kids anymore either. So who knows which is the lesser evil.

I think it depends on the situation...

With 2-3 year olds, there's really no other option.  They operate on emotional impulse.  You cannot reason with them.  You can bribe them, but that creates bigger problems.  There are lots of manipulative psychological tricks you can use, but they figure them out quickly if you abuse them too much.  You can occasionally make them feel bad if they upset someone else they care about, but that really depends on how their empathy is functioning at that time.  The only thing you can do reliably is scare the hell out of them and/or assert your dominance.  If your toddler is doing things that can get him seriously injured and you cannot explain to him why it's a bad idea... you yell.  If yelling doesn't work, you let them know that YOU will hurt them if they don't heed your warnings.

But when it's not for their protection, I think fear tactics should be avoided as much as possible.  Fear can prevent immediate threats, but it doesn't teach wisdom. 

Composure is important, if you want any kind of respect from your kids in the long-term, and if they're to have any example of decent behavior to learn from.  The best lessons are always learned from one's own mistakes anyway.  Of course, there are so many factors involved in how much freedom and ability a parent has at any given time to do the best possible thing...

[nenjin]

My parents always made it an issue of my understanding. If I wasn't doing what they wanted, it's because I wasn't or refused to understand them. They made me responsible for my actions according to what they wanted, and there were consequences. I wasn't always aware of what the rules were BEFORE I screwed up, but it was guaranteed that I learned them AFTER I screwed up. My parents were always very frank with me as a kid, as soon as I was able to comprehend them. They'd get down to my level and look me in the eyes and make sure it was registering. And if it wasn't, or I refused to agree, it was time out, spanking or an explanation.

Mostly people are in a hurry I think and totally embarrassed to discipline or parent their kids in public. It's understandable. But you just gotta do it, and I think the sooner you start treating your kids like adults the sooner they start acting like them. The leash doesn't really address the issue, it just makes it easier to deal with. Perhaps too easy. Our dogs have leashes because they in the end they can't be reasoned with. We really shouldn't evoke the same kind of impression about when dealing with children.*

*I have no kids.

[SalmonGod]

the sooner you start treating your kids like adults the sooner they start acting like them

I agree with this whenever possible.  Make sure they understand what's going on, rather than  "This is the rule.  End of discussion."  I agree with you about how use of a leash relates to this, also.  I do the same kind of kid wrangling you described your dad doing. 

Our dogs have leashes because they in the end they can't be reasoned with. We really shouldn't evoke the same kind of impression about when dealing with children.

But I'd like to reinforce that toddlers cannot be reasoned with.  They understand words.  They have basic problem solving ability.  They understanding action/reaction.  Anything past this gets really tricky.  They literally have the same attention span at that age as a dog, and cannot think ahead in multiple steps.

Here's a common scenario for you.  Supper time.  My two-year-old (Grim) doesn't like what we're having.  He fiddles with his food and pays attention to what's going on around him instead of eating.  My 6 year old (Hiro) eats his food super fast so he can get dessert.  So he shows up at the table with a couple cookies.  Grim is now obsessed with getting cookies.  He goes to get them and we move them out of his reach.  He gets a chair to stand on (basic problem solving) and we scold him.  So now he understands that we don't want him to have the cookies, and he'll get scolded for going against our wishes (action/reaction).  He thinks we're just being unfair, because Hiro got cookies.  We try to explain to him "Grim, you can't have cookies until you eat your supper."  As we're saying this to him he will react to the word cookies with "Yeah!  Cookies!  That's what I want!"  and the word supper with  "No thanks.  I don't want that" (word recognition).  We'll simplify the message by getting his cookies and showing them to him.  When he reaches for them cheerfully, we pull them away and say "No.  Supper first, then cookies."  He'll just think we're taunting him.  We're showing him what he wants and what he doesn't want, and telling him he can have one but not the other.

It's no use.  He doesn't have the ability to think in that fashion yet.  You just have to work around it the best you can, until he's developed some more.

[nenjin]

I get what you're saying. And in that scenario, my dad would have come down on me, hard, after the 3rd or 4th time. Like, time in your room/no dinner and later he'd debrief me on why it happened. I resented a lot of that, but in his mind if kids are being kids the best way to reach them is prevent them from doing anything so they have nothing but time to think about what happened. And when rules were flagrantly broken, like "no cookies before dinner", and he'd gotten a "Yes I understand"....well, out came the belt. I don't know exactly what age this all started, but my earliest memories are filled with lessons about my behavior. Usually pretty blunt ones.

[kaijyuu]

I feel that I *should* hate these things, given that I'm one of the craziest nutcases concerning children's rights that you'll ever meet.


However, if the kid's stupid enough to run around into the street and whatnot I really don't have much of a problem with them. I think it fair to assume that parents aren't going to spend money on these things unless they have had trouble with the kid running off in the past. As such I find it preferable to physically restrain them than say, threaten them with punishment if they run off.

[x2yzh9]

Eh, I don't know if I'll get much respect in this thread as I'm technically a 'child' myself but here I go.

Personally I was a very quiet, obedient little kid growing up. I'm sure other kids are as well. I only think child harnesses/child leashes should be used when the child has repeatedly ran off, etc. etc. Otherwise, no. I tend to think of it as long term consequences to long term actions. When should the child harness be lifted, you ask? Maximum 6 outings/trips out. This will teach the kid that the next time he does something like that, he'll be in it for a long haul(unless he likes it of course, which in that case, keep on going until he stops liking it I guess?)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you teach your children through violence, that's what they'll learn to be a legitimate solution to their problems. Children mimic the actions of their caretakers, and so violence begets violence.

[Neonivek]

If you teach your children through violence, that's what they'll learn to be a legitimate solution to their problems. Children mimic the actions of their caretakers, and so violence begets violence.

But violence solves everything...

America agrees with this the second the going gets tough.

[Lysabild]

If you teach your children through violence, that's what they'll learn to be a legitimate solution to their problems. Children mimic the actions of their caretakers, and so violence begets violence.

I want to mirror this, and draw the comparrison to dogs as we're doing. If you hit your dog, it'll see you as a stronger male and will attack you if you ever show weakness.

If you train and raise it with love it'll whine next to your leg in worry when you show weakness.

People aren't that different.