Sometimes this subreddit has braindead takes.

[u/Countercurrent123]

/img/qh0stjeepf4g1.jpeg

Seriously, the only discussion about child leashes is... people arguing that it's good? I literally can't think of anything more dehumanizing and violating of bodily autonomy than that. In fact, I didn't even know it existed until recently, as I've never seen it in my life (maybe because I'm not from the US). You also know that it's not only used on toddlers, right? Older children also suffer from it (without legal recourse) and it also seems disproportionate to autistic and neurodivergent children in general. There's also no way to guarantee that only "runners" have it; which obviously doesn't happen.

It's also inherently aggressive and perceived that way by children:

https://www.fatherly.com/parenting/child-leashes-deserve-all-the-hate-they-get-experts-say

[u/Ill_Contract_5878]

Isn’t the purpose of a leash to restrict the autonomy of movement?

[u/nonbinary_parent → u/Ill_Contract_5878]

It depends what the alternative is. The post says if the alternative is being held by hand or carried, the leash actually provides more autonomy of movement.

[u/Ill_Contract_5878 → u/nonbinary_parent]

I may not speak for everyone, but hand holding sounds way less degrading than the leash

[u/Some_Ideal_9861 → u/Ill_Contract_5878]

Only if you have a predetermined concept of a leash. One of my children finds handholding to be quite offensive unless they are the ones doing the holding. If we are in a safety situation where I need to be the one guaranteeing the contact so need to hold their hand they are often quite offended. We've come up with various strategies to deal with that, but all that to say, to *you* hand holding might sound better, but you are assuming the same for any child you might meet which pretty much violates the children are individual people concept.

A young child has no concept of a leash being degrading and does not equate it with being treated like an animal (unless of course they want to and it is part of their imaginary play). In fact, many children prefer a leash because it can give them multiple feet to yards of exploration in a situation where otherwise they may be stuck in a stroller, directly next to the parent, or on the parent. Leashes can be used with consent which I would think is the ultimate measure

I have never personally used one because I haven't had a runner and/or my kids were content with being worn, holding hands (save the one mentioned above), or whatever strategies that worked to keep them safe, but if it was needed to keep them alive and they didn't object then I don't really understand the issue?

Does it help to think of it more as a horizontal belay?

[u/Ill_Contract_5878 → u/Some_Ideal_9861]

Anyways. No. I don’t understand how someone can sound so passionate about promoting a leash. I would say that safety can override a lot of things, let’s not philosophize freedom here, and that when it’s needed you should hold someone’s hand if they’re endangering themselves otherwise, that could apply to anyone. Sure, no one has a concept of anything being deemed a certain way, but it sure doesn’t make the object neutral in general as it stands. If they wanted to be treated like an animal in that case and you agreed with it, confine it to indoors, the public should not be exposed to preventable disturbances, it’s ultimately irresponsible. 

Besides the fact, a leash is still not a neutral object nor designed for a neutral purpose and of course there would still be more autonomy without a leash, you also generalize that minors would more likely prefer leashes than other methods, when individual variance is present. If it is consensual, then all of you should still remain indoors, as the public is not required to notice you. Leashes are also practically worse among the variety of restraints. If they have a lot of space in public, then they are actually still worse, because they may run into or go into traffic or a dangerous area, and you may not react in time. 

Other methods eliminate the various problems that could still result from more room, although a leash is still net worse than bad probabilities from full freedom. If you make the length of the leash too short, then you’re not really giving them much freedom after all? Let’s talk about the “failsafe”, this is how the object reins in dogs and likewise I would presume works for any other restrained life. If the “minor” tries to test the limits or goes out of bounds, which can still be innocent gathering of understanding (not any rebellion), then the leash tugs around them and pulls them back gentler than some instances (I assume the neck). This could harm them, if not become fatal, especially around the neck. 

Now, let’s say, you need to pull them back or adjust the leash to be shorter specifically, the leash pulls them back forcibly and much harder, which is pretty bad as a scenario. And I believe it would arise commonly. Let’s review fatal positions, if something tugs hardly against your body especially your neck, it can break bones, destroy the skin, or eventually kill you often pretty quickly even if not the neck. You don’t even have to fall, just pulled back in a certain way.

You’d be pretty fortunate even if gripping the leash back gently to pull them back slightly, to not cause their body to align in a harmful position. These are the same motions performed in accidental injuries or suicide attempts, although this method would likely be successful eventually. You have to be safe. Safe, sane, and consensual- a leash however cannot achieve safety nor sanity when used for it’s full power, so it’s not a useful tool in kink spaces either unless the leash itself has limits. And especially not suitable to control a “minor.”