S/O...12 year old Independence....what is real risk vs. perceived risk?

[Ottakee]

Are there any stats out there that cover what we perceive as being a risk to our kids' safety vs. what is really a risk?

 

Like the walking alone back to a hotel room....are there any statistics about children that age being harmed, kidnapped, assaulted, etc? Or do we just fear that?

 

Same with 7-10 year olds using a public rest room alone with a parent near by.....any confirmed harm to kids in places generally considered safe?

 

Sometimes I wonder if we fear too much things that are really very low risk but then ignore the things that are really more risk.

 

Do we spend all of our time warning about "stranger danger" when we should be focusing more on protecting our kids from people they know well?

 

Obviously you need to take into consideration your location, child, their maturity level, etc.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I wonder these same things. (I do tend to be very somewhat free range on the parental spectrum.) I have friends who keep their kids under eyes but don't require bike helmets or even always seat belts. That seems to me being worried about zebras when the stampede of horses is about to trample you.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Well, this was one of the topics covered in the book Free Range Parenting. It has been years, so I don't recall the details, but basically, yes - we (society) have these terrible fears (terrorism, abduction) of things that are statistically very unlikely to befall our kids or ourselves, but we don't have much fear, or any, of things that are statistically much more likely to cause harm or death, i.e., automobiles, in-home accidents. I did look these things up once and it was quite eye-opening, with things like falling down stairs and falling in the shower/bathtub making up many injuries or deaths, but does anyone express fear that their child with die falling down the stairs?

 

I'm dealing with this same kind of fear with DH, because DD20 is planning to study abroad in France next year and DH is (imo, disproportionately) afraid of terrorism. Yes, terrorism exists, but the likelihood she will be affected by it at that time is, I'm sure, quite small, not to mention we *currently* live right outside the nation's capital - are we super-safe from terrorism right at this very moment? She is taking a much bigger risk every time she gets on the death-defying higways around here, but we don't live in constant fear of a car accident (though I do worry about that at times).

 

ETA: typo

Edited July 3, 2017 by Quill

[Twolittleboys]

I definitely think there is a big gap between actual danger and perceived danger. Without looking at statistics (which would probably be the best way to go about it), I think major risks for older kids/teens would be accidents (traffic, sports etc.), guns, drugs, mental health issues (e.g. bullying, suicide, eating disorders). Kidnappings by strangers, terrorism etc. are probably rare enough that they aren't really worth worrying about (other than obvious general safety precautions).

[Mama Geek]

I watched an interesting TED talk last week talking about car seats and how effective they are at different ages.  It indicated that after about 2 if I remember right, being in a car seat might actually be worse than just being buckled in with a shoulder belt.  He had crash tests done.  If you are interested here it is...ted talk car seats

 

Accidents are going to happen, my bigger concern with being more free range than I am is are people going to complain and call the cops.  Someone really got ticked because my dd walked out of the gas station about 45 seconds before I did and I think she knocked on our truck door because it was locked.  Dh was in the parking lot letting our dog use the bathroom.  How on earth can anyone let a kid be by themselves for a minute.

 

My dd used a helmet to learn to ride, no I don't make her use one now.  Yes I have let her go down to the front desk in a hotel before by herself.  She has even kayaked on our lake without us as long as she stays on the part of the lake we can see from the house.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

There's been some interesting stuff done on stranger danger, but of course I'm never going to find it now.  Basically, we must remember that often times, the nearest person who could HELP is a stranger.  So instead, I guess it's recommended to warn against types of behavior that are suspect, remind to always follow their gut feeling, even if it seems disobedient or rude, etc.  

 

I think it's just too hard to say, "12 year olds can reasonably walk to the hotel on their own."  What time of days is it?  What city are you in?  How busy is it outside?  And so on, and so on.  Same thing with bathroom use.  Whether or not my kids come with me or go in alone totally depends on location and the "feeling" of the place.  

 

I live in a place where letting the kids go out to play all afternoon, walk to and from school, the market, and the tobacco shop (to buy candy) is very common, so it's a lot easier to do the same.  

[Ottakee]

 

I think it's just too hard to say, "12 year olds can reasonably walk to the hotel on their own." What time of days is it? What city are you in? How busy is it outside? And so on, and so on. Same thing with bathroom use. Whether or not my kids come with me or go in alone totally depends on location and the "feeling" of the place.

I think in OP that the family was eating breakfast in the hotel lobby and child wanted to go to their room in the same hotel alone......so no walking on the streets, leaving the building, etc.

 

I agree though that the "feel" of the place does make a difference.

[JFSinIL]

I think the kids are capable...the question is, are they trained to react in self defense IF needed?  Kicking screaming running etc needs to kick in instantaneously, as evil doers rely on the "deer in the headlights" moment to grab a kid/teen/woman.  Do they know to be aware when they are out and about, looking alert, not glued to a device/phone and an easy mark?  Do they know to "trust their gut" and that they will NEVER be in trouble for refusing, say, a ride home from a family acquaintance*, or refusing to go see the new kittens in the neighbor's backyard down the street, etc.

 

*eons ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was about 9 walking to school one drizzly day a station wagon pulled over and a woman I did not recognize told me to get in the car.  I refused and kept walking.  Later that day I got yelled at by my mom for not obeying one of her sorority sisters she believed I knew, who just wanted to help me get to school.  Er, no, Mom, I am a kid and do not know all your sorority sisters.  I am not getting in a strange car with someone I do NOT KNOW!

 

Man, was I in trouble! 

 

That said, a different sorority friend of my mom's had their boy molested in a gas station bathroom while the dad was pumping gas.  :-( 

Edited July 3, 2017 by JFSinIL

[regentrude]

There is a large discrepancy between perceived and actual risk, and most of this has to do with whether we feel in control.

People perceive cars as fairly safe, because we are driving the car and have the feeling we are in control of preventing accidents, but are afraid of air planes because we have no control over whether the airplane crashes or not - even though the statistics show that air travel is extremely safe, and car crashes kill 30,000 people each year.

People are more afraid of their kids being harmed by strangers than by people they know, even though only 10% of perpretrators are strangers. And stranger abductions are extremely rare.

[PeterPan]

I think in OP that the family was eating breakfast in the hotel lobby and child wanted to go to their room in the same hotel alone......so no walking on the streets, leaving the building, etc.

 

I agree though that the "feel" of the place does make a difference.

 

Some people practice very restrictive parenting as a way of keeping obedience. Now sometimes maybe the dc has disabilities that are not obvious, but really I think it is how they choose to parent.

 

My ds has autism, but we make very obvious, daily choices to help him be as independent and self-assertive and capable as he can be. So to us, that would be a really odd scenario. We were just in a hotel, and certainly any cognitively typical 12 yo could have done that safely. Assuming it was a normal size hotel, not a huge resort with thousands of rooms and myriad halls to get lost in, I would have let my 8 yo do it. I think at another hotel we were at in April my ds DID go back and forth from the pool to the hotel room alone, multiple times. Now he could cognitively understand the numbers on the doors, how to operate the elevator, etc., yes.

 

We just don't choose to keep a super tight leash. It's good to be confident and know you have skills. And we know we have people on the other end. Like there are ways you do it. We started letting him walk to Grandma's when he was little (3, 4, I forget), but we'd call her and make sure he got there, and at first she would go out to visually see him and make sure he didn't get distracted and end up somewhere else. You teach them and keep it safe. It's ok to let them do it and watch around the corner and know they got there, hehe.

[Mergath]

I think the kids are capable...the question is, are they trained to react in self defense IF needed?  Kicking screaming running etc needs to kick in instantaneously, as evil doers rely on the "deer in the headlights" moment to grab a kid/teen/woman.  Do they know to be aware when they are out and about, looking alert, not glued to a device/phone and an easy mark?  Do they know to "trust their gut" and that they will NEVER be in trouble for refusing, say, a ride home from a family acquaintance*, or refusing to go see the new kittens in the neighbor's backyard down the street, etc.

 

*eons ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was about 9 walking to school one drizzly day a station wagon pulled over and a woman I did not recognize told me to get in the car.  I refused and kept walking.  Later that day I got yelled at by my mom for not obeying one of her sorority sisters she believed I knew, who just wanted to help me get to school.  Er, no, Mom, I am a kid and do not know all your sorority sisters.  I am not getting in a strange car with someone I do NOT KNOW!

 

Man, was I in trouble! 

 

That said, a different sorority friend of my mom's had their boy molested in a gas station bathroom while the dad was pumping gas.  :-( 

 

I think the point is to ask ourselves if it's even worthwhile to spend so much time training kids in things like self-defense in a stranger abduction situation when there are much more serious threats to their safety and well-being. According to the statistics on freerangekids.com, there are only around one hundred fifteen actual stranger abductions each year, and the vast majority of kids that make up the missing children statistics are teenage runaways. You have almost as much chance of being killed by a cow, but we don't drill kids on how to survive a cow trampling. (Well, unless you live on a dairy farm, I suppose.)

 

Meanwhile, there are over five thousand suicide attempts per DAY among kids in grades seven through twelve. (Stats.) But instead of using our time to teach kids about mental illness and related stuff, we're spending a ridiculous amount of time teaching them about stranger danger. Personally, at my house we spend WAY more time talking about mental health than we do about child abduction. Honestly, I think I've probably spent as much time telling dd not to go near the local cows as I have telling her not to go anywhere with a stranger. And where we live, the cows are probably the greater risk.

 

[winterbaby]

I am cautious about physical safety as well - we all use our seatbelts etc. But the physical risks of modern life are baked into the environment, more or less. You can't really opt out of them. You can opt out of leaving children unattended. I don't buy the low stats argument because there's no chance low enough for me of something that's essentially a fate worse than death (living with the knowledge your kid was tortured to death by a sex pervert). In a country this size, a one in 100,000 or even 1 in a million chance comes up a lot. And that one person is real. I find the "but the stats are so low!" argument a denial of their experience. I also wonder how much of the stats being low is due to the vigilance we are being urged to discard.

 

Also, the stats around rape are NOT low and as a mother of a daughter what I am doing by teaching her not to trust strange men is preparing her for when she will be out on her own. I don't teach that "strangers" as such are dangerous, I do teach her that adults in general and men in particular have little to no reason to approach young girls and that it's better to be rude to a well-meaning person than a victim. I teach her that if she is being bothered by someone, to alert whoever else is around, preferably but not exclusively a woman.

 

I don't think it will stunt my kid's social development to hold off on roaming about unsupervised until we are confident she can handle it. She's autistic and I'm not sure of her instincts sometimes. It may be different for a neurotypical child. And as I said on the other thread, the reason I am so fearful myself is from being sent out alone into a city full of terrifyingly creepy men at that age. I don't know how much of that was particular to the place where I was living (Los Angeles) and how much is that there are many more dangerous people than adults are aware of because they only show their true colors to the young girls they are after. I narrowly avoided becoming a statistic on multiple occasions.

[Mergath]

I am cautious about physical safety as well - we all use our seatbelts etc. But the physical risks of modern life are baked into the environment, more or less. You can't really opt out of them. You can opt out of leaving children unattended. I don't buy the low stats argument because there's no chance low enough for me of something that's essentially a fate worse than death (living with the knowledge your kid was tortured to death by a sex pervert). In a country this size, a one in 100,000 or even 1 in a million chance comes up a lot. And that one person is real. I find the "but the stats are so low!" argument a denial of their experience. I also wonder how much of the stats being low is due to the vigilance we are being urged to discard.

 

Also, the stats around rape are NOT low and as a mother of a daughter what I am doing by teaching her not to trust strange men is preparing her for when she will be out on her own. I don't teach that "strangers" as such are dangerous, I do teach her that adults in general and men in particular have little to no reason to approach young girls and that it's better to be rude to a well-meaning person than a victim. I teach her that if she is being bothered by someone, to alert whoever else is around, preferably but not exclusively a woman.

 

I don't think it will stunt my kid's social development to hold off on roaming about unsupervised until we are confident she can handle it. She's autistic and I'm not sure of her instincts sometimes. It may be different for a neurotypical child. And as I said on the other thread, the reason I am so fearful myself is from being sent out alone into a city full of terrifyingly creepy men at that age. I don't know how much of that was particular to the place where I was living (Los Angeles) and how much is that there are many more dangerous people than adults are aware of because they only show their true colors to the young girls they are after. I narrowly avoided becoming a statistic on multiple occasions.

 

There are a million horrible things that could theoretically happen to a child every day. There are kids who have been killed by lightning strikes or sharks. It's horrible and I'm sure the parents of those children beat themselves up for not making different choices every day, but it isn't a "denial of their experience" to say that I don't waste any mental energy worrying about dd being struck by lightning or attacked by a shark. We can't train our children for every single possible eventuality that could ever happen, so it makes sense to focus on the most probable.

 

[Carrie12345]

What I aim for (and definitely don't always succeed in) is to lower risks without limiting experiences. Car seats, helmets, knee pads, etc. haven't limited my kids' enjoyment of life.  Not letting them play outside because we sometimes have snakes, bears, coyotes, and bobcats WOULD limit their enjoyment of life, so we teach them what to do if they come across them.  We do the same thing regarding all sorts of scenarios, from the unlikely to the highly likely.

 

I do think my kids are as brave and confident as they are BECAUSE we place so much importance on safety.  They know how to minimize their risks. They know how to handle unexpected situations. (Most of them. I do have a child on the spectrum, which is a whole other thing.)

 

My teenage daughters are actively training for emergency services, so they may have different views on risk than some people. They've seen and/or studied horrifying scenarios.  And yet they're eager to throw themselves into dangerous situations, given the right safety equipment and training.

 

My mother was appalled that I let my then-14yo dd walk the dog at the hotel, alone, at night.  I hadn't thought anything of it until she said something.  It did make me doubt myself a little, but it really wasn't any more dangerous than if she had done it at 12 or at 24.  And I really don't want to have a 24yo who's afraid to walk a dog by herself.

[winterbaby]

There are a million horrible things that could theoretically happen to a child every day. There are kids who have been killed by lightning strikes or sharks. It's horrible and I'm sure the parents of those children beat themselves up for not making different choices every day, but it isn't a "denial of their experience" to say that I don't waste any mental energy worrying about dd being struck by lightning or attacked by a shark. We can't train our children for every single possible eventuality that could ever happen, so it makes sense to focus on the most probable.

 

I think being a victim of violent crime, particularly as a child, is worse than being hit by lightning. My view on this is influenced by having been a victim myself, in ways I haven't even mentioned here because I don't like to go into it. The rhetoric seems to imply that small chance equals no chance, which minimizes the experience of those it does happen to.

 

The chance of being abducted by a child killer is blessedly small. The chance of being sexually assaulted or even just terrorized and followed, flashed and grabbed at, propositioned and groomed for trafficking, as happened to me dozens of times as a kid and teenager - almost none of them reported to make it into the official stats - is not small.

 

You're right, there are all sorts of things that can happen. Things you can influence the chances of, things you can't. Different trade-offs in terms of what you give up to avoid them - for example, most people's lives would grind to a halt if they stopped driving. My daughter's life will not grind to a halt if I maintain the policy that I need to know where she is at all times for a couple more years. Each parent makes their own judgment in this area.

 

I do not think it will affect my child's ultimate independence for me to watch her a little while longer. Part of the point I am making is that whether I'm right or wrong about the objective danger vis a vis stats, I myself am a counterexample to the "free range" idea that you have to start them traveling on their own in their tweens or younger or else they'll be tied to the apron strings for life. Because I'm sure I would be much more confident right now if I hadn't spent my formative years sprinting away from low grade and not so low grade sexual predators.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am cautious about physical safety as well - we all use our seatbelts etc. But the physical risks of modern life are baked into the environment, more or less. You can't really opt out of them. You can opt out of leaving children unattended. I don't buy the low stats argument because there's no chance low enough for me of something that's essentially a fate worse than death (living with the knowledge your kid was tortured to death by a sex pervert). In a country this size, a one in 100,000 or even 1 in a million chance comes up a lot. And that one person is real. I find the "but the stats are so low!" argument a denial of their experience. I also wonder how much of the stats being low is due to the vigilance we are being urged to discard.

 

Also, the stats around rape are NOT low and as a mother of a daughter what I am doing by teaching her not to trust strange men is preparing her for when she will be out on her own. I don't teach that "strangers" as such are dangerous, I do teach her that adults in general and men in particular have little to no reason to approach young girls and that it's better to be rude to a well-meaning person than a victim. I teach her that if she is being bothered by someone, to alert whoever else is around, preferably but not exclusively a woman.

 

I don't think it will stunt my kid's social development to hold off on roaming about unsupervised until we are confident she can handle it. She's autistic and I'm not sure of her instincts sometimes. It may be different for a neurotypical child. And as I said on the other thread, the reason I am so fearful myself is from being sent out alone into a city full of terrifyingly creepy men at that age. I don't know how much of that was particular to the place where I was living (Los Angeles) and how much is that there are many more dangerous people than adults are aware of because they only show their true colors to the young girls they are after. I narrowly avoided becoming a statistic on multiple occasions.

Some of these acts are not only low but essentially nonexistent.

[MommyLiberty5013]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

I think many parents are concerned with being "cool" and doing the whole free range thing, but the fact is that many, many more people these days have addictions to sex and porn. THIS is statistical fact. Their brains and judgment centers are being rewired by these sensations and images. Boundaries are being broken even more.

 

And, there is a wide range of sexual flavors out there these days too. A lot is more acceptable sexually in our culture. We are not a far reach away from more and more people struggling with sexual desires involving minors. Seriously. This is a real thing in other nations - read up on sex tourism in some Asian nations in which men can "be" with babies and toddlers.

 

I am not going to let my kid be a guinea pig in the name of "coolness" or free range. I do not care. Yes, it is likely a sexual problem would occur with someone the child already knows like a family member or neighbor. Maybe "stranger danger" is not such an issue as the known people. But the rules for not being alone should be ingrained now in their learning centers of their brains - safety in numbers and not leaving a friend or sibling to fend for him/her self.

 

Why does this have to factor into parenting at all? Kids can have a lot of other ways of being and showing their independence. Why does a parent want to be free range with this sort of thing when there are a host of other safe alternatives?

 

Let's use the same logic on home projects. Would you invite an uninsured and unlicensed worker into your private nest/home to do a plumbing or roofing project? I sincerely hope not as that opens a home owner up to risk for a poor job with no option for compensation if something goes awry and they cut themselves on your pipe or fall off your roof. Why are kids treated differently in the name of "coolness?" Are children less valuable then one's assets? You would likely protect those assets, why not protect the kids from risk?

Edited July 3, 2017 by MommyLiberty5013

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I think there is a out of proportion sense of risk.  It's bolstered I think by other things.

 

The idea that we can control all things.

Denial of death, that some people will die in accidents and crime, no matter what we do.  Denial that everyone will die eventually.

A fear that bad things happening to them somehow ruins people.

A lack of an accepted and effective cultural or spiritual way to deal with guilt.

A tendency to blame parents, or someone, whenever something bad happens. 

 

I also think that a tendency to deal with these questions in terms of liability tends to ramp up all these factors significantly. 

 

There is also the fact that people tend not to look at the other side - what is lost by not letting a 12 year old walk through a hotel.  To me that is actually a shocking infantalization of a person who is capable of so much.  but those capacities don't develop if they aren't used, and sometimes I think there is even an ideal window for doing so - kids may, for example, start to view the world as scary or something they can't navigate - like continually telling a toddler that it is too dangerous to try and walk.

 

But I think a major link between fear and litigation - its notable that in places where there isn't the one, you often don't have the other, either.

[Carrie12345]

There are a million horrible things that could theoretically happen to a child every day. There are kids who have been killed by lightning strikes or sharks. It's horrible and I'm sure the parents of those children beat themselves up for not making different choices every day, but it isn't a "denial of their experience" to say that I don't waste any mental energy worrying about dd being struck by lightning or attacked by a shark. We can't train our children for every single possible eventuality that could ever happen, so it makes sense to focus on the most probable.

 

 

I think it's funny (not ha-ha funny) that you bring up lightning because, to me, there's nothing wasteful about learning what to do in a storm, nor does it interfere with life. My kids knew how to react to thunder storms even before our neighbor's house got struck by lightning.  Now my 10 and 6yos know how to read the radar on their own devices, prep themselves to hang out in the safest part of the house, and determine when it's safe to go back outside to play in the mud.  They also know what to do if we're away from home in a storm, and how to react if the car is struck by lightning.  They've lost *nothing* in the process of learning, and live perfectly normal lives.  I don't waste any energy worrying, because I know they can and will take their own reasonable precautions. I don't understand what the downside is.

[winterbaby]

I started to view the world as scary because *it actually was scary*. I have no interest in teaching my kid not to be scared of the scary things that are out there, and potentially getting blindsided by them as a result.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

I have, but I didn't enjoy it.  Was I bothered by people?  Yes, sometimes.  I had lots of tricks for dealing with it.

 

Not a dark alley per se, but down various dark alleys and streets in a not so safe area.

 

I had a cousin who was literally snatched by someone from the driveway of her parent's home and was brutally raped and left naked and dumped in some woods.  Is this typical and likely?  No, but obviously it happens and just knowing this one person who this happened to is enough to freak me out.  KWIM?

[Twolittleboys]

I think there is a difference between a comparison of real vs. perceived risk (which is a pretty objective thing really when looked at not on a individual basis but overall) and what someone is personally comfortable with. Personal experience (having been a victim oneself or knowing someone that it has happened to) will have an impact.

 

Of course every situation is different. Kidnappings etc. are extremely unlikely compared to many other dangers but on a personal level it might look different (environment, maturity of child, family situation etc.). If you live in a sketchy neighborhood the situation is different from a small town (which also has dangers but not the same). Above I mentioned guns as a real danger but that was based on the US. Where we live the danger of gun accidents is extremely low.

 

Even though I think the risk of kidnapping etc. is very low I still think it is good to be careful. I wouldn't really want my 12 year old to ride his bike along a deserted country road late at night. And if we are in a sketchy area I keep the kids close etc. And of course everyone will draw the line differently and that is fine. But what I do consider a problem is when people are so focused on dangers with low likelihood (e.g. terrorism) that they either curtail activities a lot (e.g. no travel) or ignore much more obvious dangers.

 

And I do feel rather bad for people who see an (unlikely) danger everywhere. I mean if a 12 year old waits on their own outside a ride at Disney World it seems highly unlikely something could happen. The same child is much more likely to slip in the bath tub.

[EmilyGF]

I come at this as someone who was given an incredible level of trust and responsibility at a young age - and who thrived on it. 

 

When I got to college, I was very independent and capable. Most of my peers were not. I was self-confident and able to handle hard things when my peers only had some fragile self-esteem. 

 

Once, when I was in junior high or high school, I noticed someone in a van following me. I knew what to do - I went to the nearest store and called a friend's mom to pick me up. Later I called the police. I don't suggest there is nothing unsafe about this world, but that encountering unsafe situations is part of life and needs to be prepped for. My mom once took my sister out in the back yard (she was maybe 7 or 8?) and had her practice screaming as loudly as she could so that she could scream if something happened to her. We talked about these things.

 

With the recent abduction in Champaign, IL, we talked about not getting into people's cars you don't know. But the fact that it made international news shows how uncommon it is.

 

Emily

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

I think many parents are concerned with being "cool" and doing the whole free range thing, but the fact is that many, many more people these days have addictions to sex and porn. THIS is statistical fact. Their brains and judgment centers are being rewired by these sensations and images. Boundaries are being broken even more.

 

And, there is a wide range of sexual flavors out there these days too. A lot is more acceptable sexually in our culture. We are not a far reach away from more and more people struggling with sexual desires involving minors. Seriously. This is a real thing in other nations - read up on sex tourism in some Asian nations in which men can "be" with babies and toddlers.

 

I am not going to let my kid be a guinea pig in the name of "coolness" or free range. I do not care. Yes, it is likely a sexual problem would occur with someone the child already knows like a family member or neighbor. Maybe "stranger danger" is not such an issue as the known people. But the rules for not being alone should be ingrained now in their learning centers of their brains - safety in numbers and not leaving a friend or sibling to fend for him/her self.

 

Why does this have to factor into parenting at all? Kids can have a lot of other ways of being and showing their independence. Why does a parent want to be free range with this sort of thing when there are a host of other safe alternatives?

 

Let's use the same logic on home projects. Would you invite an uninsured and unlicensed worker into your private nest/home to do a plumbing or roofing project? I sincerely hope not as that opens a home owner up to risk for a poor job with no option for compensation if something goes awry and they cut themselves on your pipe or fall off your roof. Why are kids treated differently in the name of "coolness?" Are children less valuable then one's assets? You would likely protect those assets, why not protect the kids from risk?

 

1.)  I have walked down many dark alleys.  All in safe neighborhoods with low crime rates and no significant issues with violent crime.  I likely would not walk down a dark alley in a bar district which is known to have a lot of young women walking alone at night.  Predators tend not to randomly pick places to commit crimes. 

 

2.) I have not seen anyone in these threads say a thing about being "cool", and it has never been implied.  I certainly didn't consider myself "cool" for allowing my 6yo son to pee by himself.

 

3.) I won't get into the battle of statistics regarding sexual assaults, but keep in mind that you cannot compare data across generations due to the lack of record keeping for many crimes pre-1990.  You should also note that previous generations may not have been less immoral, but rather there were more "acceptable" ways for people to act out their desires.  Slaves were raped, abuse among children in sweatshops was rampant, sexual atrocities were commonly forced upon Native Americans, etc..  Anytime someone says people today are somehow worse I often wonder how sanitized their history education must have been.

 

4.)  Related to #3, if you thing victimizing children is new, I am not sure what to say.  If anything such acts are becoming less acceptable.  For the first time, every major nation has laws against child pornography.  There is also a more concerted effort to attack the sex tourism industry, and great strides have been made compared to what was going on in the 90s. 

 

5.)  Letting my child pee by himself or walk down the hall to a hotel room isn't making him a guinea pig for anything.

 

6.)  Do you have bars on the windows of your bedrooms?  More children have been abducted from their own beds or have snuck out to meet a predator than have been abducted from rest stop bathrooms or hotel lobbies.  If you don't have window bars, why are you so free range and why don't you love your kids enough to keep them from being guinea pigs?  Are you trying to be cool?

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Bootsie]

There have been a number of studies and statistics that have been used by researchers in the field of behavioral finance that point to misunderstanding and miscalculations of risk by individuals in day-to-day life.  One of those is the risk of your child being harmed by Halloween candy--the statistic in the US is that there has never been a report of a child having poison or a razor blade in their Halloween candy by a non-family member.  Yet, many parents are extremely fearful of something that has NEVER happened.  

 

The research points to people overestimating the likelihood of some horrible event (a child playing outside being abducted).  There is also little evidence that extreme measures reduce the likelihood of these events happening.  The research also points to people underestimating the cost of these extreme measures.  At the same time we tend to ignore other risks which are much more likely to happen and that we have more control over (such as the chance that our child will develop diabetes which can be reduced somewhat by playing outdoors). 

[Guest]

I think people don't make as many wise choices based on statistics as they think they do.

[regentrude]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

Sure. If I had a reason to walk this way, yes. (Do I spend my spare time hanging out in dark alleys at night just because? of course not.)

I think many parents are concerned with being "cool" and doing the whole free range thing,

 

Insinuating tht parents do this because they want to be "cool" is insulting to parents who parent differently. Most parents who chose to give their children more freedom than you choose to, have carefully considered the risks and have come to the informed conclusion that it is desirable to give their children the freedom and independence they consider age appropriate. 

This decision is usually informed by the parent's own experiences, an analysis of the local situation, and a knowledge of their child's development and maturity.

 

And, there is a wide range of sexual flavors out there these days too. A lot is more acceptable sexually in our culture. We are not a far reach away from more and more people struggling with sexual desires involving minors.

 

Data? On what do you base the assumption that deviancy did not exist in the good old times?

 

But the rules for not being alone should be ingrained now in their learning centers of their brains - safety in numbers and not leaving a friend or sibling to fend for him/her self.

 

At what age do you propse to relax this rule? It is not feasible, or desirable, for most functional adults to never be alone.

 

I am not going to let my kid be a guinea pig in the name of "coolness" or free range....

 

Why are kids treated differently in the name of "coolness?" 

 

Again: it has nothing to do with being "cool". Careful and caring parents can weigh the risks and come to the conclusion that it is beneficial to give their children more independence than you choose for yours.

Entire societies raise children with much fewer restrictions than the US. But I guess you would chalk that up to the entire society  wanting to be "cool".

Edited July 3, 2017 by regentrude

[sassenach]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

I think many parents are concerned with being "cool" and doing the whole free range thing, but the fact is that many, many more people these days have addictions to sex and porn. THIS is statistical fact. Their brains and judgment centers are being rewired by these sensations and images. Boundaries are being broken even more.

 

And, there is a wide range of sexual flavors out there these days too. A lot is more acceptable sexually in our culture. We are not a far reach away from more and more people struggling with sexual desires involving minors. Seriously. This is a real thing in other nations - read up on sex tourism in some Asian nations in which men can "be" with babies and toddlers.

 

I am not going to let my kid be a guinea pig in the name of "coolness" or free range. I do not care. Yes, it is likely a sexual problem would occur with someone the child already knows like a family member or neighbor. Maybe "stranger danger" is not such an issue as the known people. But the rules for not being alone should be ingrained now in their learning centers of their brains - safety in numbers and not leaving a friend or sibling to fend for him/her self.

 

Why does this have to factor into parenting at all? Kids can have a lot of other ways of being and showing their independence. Why does a parent want to be free range with this sort of thing when there are a host of other safe alternatives?

 

Let's use the same logic on home projects. Would you invite an uninsured and unlicensed worker into your private nest/home to do a plumbing or roofing project? I sincerely hope not as that opens a home owner up to risk for a poor job with no option for compensation if something goes awry and they cut themselves on your pipe or fall off your roof. Why are kids treated differently in the name of "coolness?" Are children less valuable then one's assets? You would likely protect those assets, why not protect the kids from risk?

I don't even know what to say about being cool. My parenting decisions are not about coolness. Ever.

 

The discussion at hand is about prioritizing how we teach our children to process the dangers of the world around them, and the human propensity to get it wrong when it comes to risk assessment.

 

This isn't just about protecting kids, this is about training them to assess the world around them. When we overprotect, we are damaging a child's ability to navigate the world. When we under protect, we are likewise leaving them vulnerable. It's a pretty important exercise to try to rightly understand actual risk levels so that we get it right.

[winterbaby]

I don't think it's "extreme measures" not to make my kid travel by herself every day on public transportation across an inner city environment filled with predatory men, the way my parents did. In the hotel situation I don't think it's "extreme measures" to say "hold on a few minutes and I'll go with you." The parent may well decide it's all right to let her go, but generally, watching your pre-teen kids is not "extreme."

[kbutton]

I think that sometimes the risk of the event is also weighed by how likely things could go right or wrong after such an event. Does your location make it more or less likely that if your child had something negative happen, resources would be in place to mitigate those (everything from law enforcement, good EMS,to counseling)? To me, that seems like part of the risk. Lifestyles vary a lot more by geography than we think.

 

I agree that kids need skills, but if no one's kids do x or y activity that is normal someplace else, it does have the potential to mark a child as one who is vulnerable. In some places, everyone takes public transportation to school or walks home. In some areas, a kid would be alone doing that, and they might look like low hanging fruit. That doesn't make it impossible for those activities to be safe, but I think that it might require different strategies for being safe. 

 

I would be curious about current stats on mitigating traffic accidents and such--severity, time of day, etc. With texting and driving, I am sure that happens 24/7, but I know that in high school health class, we were taught that traffic death risks were highest at peak times for drunk driving (after 8 or 9 PM Thurs through Saturday night). That could have been a local statistic, but it came from public health people who were brought into our class to tell us these things. They stressed holiday weekends and things like that too. I personally try to not be out late at times when people are more likely to drive drunk. It is probably moot with texting and driving, but it stuck with me from high school. I know I am not alone in that, but I bet I am in the minority about being cautious that way. 

 

We have a situation locally where someone is racing up and down stretches of back roads (and I suspect one main road that intersects several back roads), every weekend late at night. You can hear screeching tires, see rubber strips on the road, etc., and calls to law enforcement haven't done much. The direction I am most likely to travel at night is the one with all the unsafe activity. I am sure that influences my view of safety at the moment.

[EmilyGF]

I heard an interesting NPR report where German brain surgeons were interviewed about why they oppose the use of bicycle helmets - because they view the harm caused by viewing bicyling as dangerous (inactivity becoming common) as much worse than the occasional brain injury.

 

See this interesting graph - the more people wear helmets, the more they die bicycling. It could be because fewer people cycle and therefore people in places with helmet laws are more unsafe cycling. It could be that people without helmets cycle differently. 

 

Safety laws and rules always have unintended consequences.

 

Emily

[Ravin]

My DD took public transit to school daily in 6th grade. It was an urban environment, though not the sketchier parts of the metro area.

 

DS will be walking to/from school in 1st grade, and walked TO school quite often in K. Same urban environment (though he only has to walk through our townhouse complex and across one public neighborhood street with a crosswalk to get to the block the school is on--it takes about five minutes).

 

Once they knew where they were going I would be comfortable with my kids of age 8 and up going back to the hotel room on their own. 12 yo for sure, again unless there is some hidden disability that makes it a bad idea for that particular kid.

 

Right now, my six year old is using the restroom in the probation office, which is about a hundred feet across the courtyard from my office (which has bad plumbing), which is attached to the jail (in a very small rez town). I escorted him over there because he didn't know where it was, but he is going to walk back on his own.

 

 

[sassenach]

I don't think it's "extreme measures" not to make my kid travel by herself every day on public transportation across an inner city environment filled with predatory men, the way my parents did. In the hotel situation I don't think it's "extreme measures" to say "hold on a few minutes and I'll go with you." The parent may well decide it's all right to let her go, but generally, watching your pre-teen kids is not "extreme."

I don't know how old your dd is or what her maturity levels, but I don't necessarily disagree with you.

 

However, there is a line. It needs to be acknowledged that at some point parental restriction of developmentally appropriate freedom is actually damaging to the child.

 

Understanding the true risks involved in a decision can help a parent to push past irrational fears that might cause them to restrict to the point of damaging their child's development.

 

Allowing my kids freedom has always come with a twinge of fear. I am risk averse. But when my 14yo had the opportunity to ride the ferry into the city and go to a ball game with his friend, I had to recognize that there was very little actual risk involved and say yes. He needs to learn how to navigate the world and he won't learn if I never say yes.

 

My 12yo has the freedom to ride around our neighborhood on her scooter. Her 13yo friend isn't allowed to leave their front yard. I believe that her friend is being harmed by that restriction. She's being trained to not trust herself and not trust even her own (VERY SAFE) neighborhood. There's a fear being cultivated inside her that will cripple her. She's 5 years from adulthood and I have no honest clue how she will learn to navigate the world.

 

This discussion really isn't for the overprotective. I don't think statistics are enough to counter that level of anxiety. This discussion is for those of us who are trying to keep the balance between risk and freedom and are willing to consider that feelings aren't an accurate way to assess risk.

[Bootsie]

 

 

I would be curious about current stats on mitigating traffic accidents and such--severity, time of day, etc. With texting and driving, I am sure that happens 24/7, but I know that in high school health class, we were taught that traffic death risks were highest at peak times for drunk driving (after 8 or 9 PM Thurs through Saturday night). That could have been a local statistic, but it came from public health people who were brought into our class to tell us these things. They stressed holiday weekends and things like that too. I personally try to not be out late at times when people are more likely to drive drunk. It is probably moot with texting and driving, but it stuck with me from high school. I know I am not alone in that, but I bet I am in the minority about being cautious that way. 

 

We have a situation locally where someone is racing up and down stretches of back roads (and I suspect one main road that intersects several back roads), every weekend late at night. You can hear screeching tires, see rubber strips on the road, etc., and calls to law enforcement haven't done much. The direction I am most likely to travel at night is the one with all the unsafe activity. I am sure that influences my view of safety at the moment.

More fatal accidents occur at night, on weekends, and in the month of August than at other times  (https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/car-accident-times-forbeslife-cx_he_0121driving.html)   But this is where the perception of risk can get skewed.  More people are driving on weekends and in August.  I have not seen good statistics regarding whether the percentage of people on the road at those time periods dying in an auto accident is higher.  Thus, it is like saying the number of people dying on a roller coaster in the summer is higher, so avoid roller coasters in the summer.

[Farrar]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

Yes. All the time. To get home after dark so I don't have to walk around the block. Sometimes I get nervous, but because of the rats. They creep me out. Once one almost ran over my foot.

 

I think many parents are concerned with being "cool" and doing the whole free range thing, but the fact is that many, many more people these days have addictions to sex and porn. THIS is statistical fact. Their brains and judgment centers are being rewired by these sensations and images. Boundaries are being broken even more.

 

And, there is a wide range of sexual flavors out there these days too. A lot is more acceptable sexually in our culture. We are not a far reach away from more and more people struggling with sexual desires involving minors. Seriously. This is a real thing in other nations - read up on sex tourism in some Asian nations in which men can "be" with babies and toddlers.

 

So many issues conflated here. One, I don't raise my kids "free range" to be cool. I mean, since people get very judgy about it, it's often more hassle than one would expect these days. I do it because I think it's the right thing for my kids to have the ability to have appropriate freedoms. If you want to raise your kids differently, well, I disagree that it's necessary or positive, but we all get to parent our own way. Two, yes, there are issues these days with p*rn, and yes, it's rewiring brains of young people, which is disturbing and horrible. AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY KIDS WALKING TO THE STORE.

 

I am not going to let my kid be a guinea pig in the name of "coolness" or free range. I do not care. Yes, it is likely a sexual problem would occur with someone the child already knows like a family member or neighbor. Maybe "stranger danger" is not such an issue as the known people. But the rules for not being alone should be ingrained now in their learning centers of their brains - safety in numbers and not leaving a friend or sibling to fend for him/her self.

 

Historically speaking, the helicoptering is the guinea pig experiment. Free range has always been the norm and still is in most nations and cultures. It's unusual that young teens not be allowed out without adults like has become common in some segments of our culture here. 

 

Why does this have to factor into parenting at all? Kids can have a lot of other ways of being and showing their independence. Why does a parent want to be free range with this sort of thing when there are a host of other safe alternatives?

 

So, so many reasons. I love that my kids feel confident to go outside on their own. It's good for their health, confidence, and their street skills and common sense. It's convenient that they can run errands. It helps them be managers of their own money if they walk to the store or go to the movies with it on their own. What exactly is the "safe alternative" for kids to learn to walk somewhere, take public transit, etc. alone other than to just do it - which is already statistically very safe?

 

Let's use the same logic on home projects. Would you invite an uninsured and unlicensed worker into your private nest/home to do a plumbing or roofing project? I sincerely hope not as that opens a home owner up to risk for a poor job with no option for compensation if something goes awry and they cut themselves on your pipe or fall off your roof. Why are kids treated differently in the name of "coolness?" Are children less valuable then one's assets? You would likely protect those assets, why not protect the kids from risk?

 

This analogy makes zero sense to me. For one thing, most of us aren't "professional" parents with parenting certification, so we're already DIY'ing this childrearing gig. I'm not even sure what the children are in this analogy... are they the house or the inexperienced contractors? If they're the house, then I'll say children need to grow and change and learn and, you know, be sentient beings. My house just needs to not fall apart. It just sits there. Any changes that happen to it are on me, because it's MINE. My children belong to themselves. They're not possessions at all. They're not my "assets." They're their own people. If they're the inexperienced contractors, then this is exactly why we introduce freedom slowly, with scaffolding, in ways that make sense for them. I would never force my kids out on the street in a strange place at a very young age with no skills. My 12 yos take the bus and subway alone, walk to the library or the stores alone, go to the park alone, have taken short hikes alone... but we warmed up to all of those activities slowly over a period of years. I rode the bus with ds several times before he went alone for the first time. By the time my kids work their way up to walking somewhere alone, they've had enough practice to get my certification for walking down the street.

 

Further, this is just insulting to anyone who lets their 12 yo outside alone. It's not because we don't value our kids' safety or treat them cavalierly. Come on. It's because we see a greater value in encouraging independence, self-reliance, and other things. The repeated implication throughout this post that it's to be "cool" for the other "cool parents" is just nonsense. Are you sheltering your kids to be "cool" for the "cool sheltering parents"? I mean, I hope not. I hope it's because you think that's the best thing for them.

 

You cannot protect your kids from all risks. There are risks to refusing to let your kids outside or following them everywhere. But those are the risks you're more comfortable with. I'm not as comfortable with those risks. And I am comfortable with the risks of letting my kids hang out at the park without me.

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by Farrar

[wendyroo]

I don't think it's "extreme measures" not to make my kid travel by herself every day on public transportation across an inner city environment filled with predatory men, the way my parents did. In the hotel situation I don't think it's "extreme measures" to say "hold on a few minutes and I'll go with you." The parent may well decide it's all right to let her go, but generally, watching your pre-teen kids is not "extreme."

 

An example:

 

We went to the zoo with one of my friends, K, and her son, N, (an only child).  It is a small, very safe, suburban zoo, with only one entrance/exit, so I do not worry at all about my 3, 6 and 8 year old children (one of whom is autistic, and two of whom have other mental health challenges) getting abducted or molested.  I allow them to go into the restrooms without me, go ahead to the next exhibit even if it is out of sight, "disappear" into the large play structure without me knowing exactly where in the playground they are at any given time, etc.

 

K, on the other hand, acts like N's umbilical cord hasn't been cut quite yet.  He is 9 years old, but she doesn't let him wander more than about 5 feet from her at any given time.  It is like she is poised at any moment to have to snatch him back from an evil doer. 

 

It is easy to say "better safe than sorry", but with N, I clearly see consequences of him never having to deal with things independently.  He got a rock in his sandal, and was afraid to take it out because the rest of us might keep walking and "something might happen" to him.  Those were his words...to describe what he thought might happen if he paused long enough to take a rock out of his sandal...out in the open, within sight of his parent, in the middle of the day, at a familiar zoo.   :huh:

 

 At the reptile house, N came to K to "tattle" on an adult who was standing at one of the aquariums blocking N's view.  He could not independently solve that problem, and he was so scared of talking to a stranger, that he didn't even think it was safe to say "Excuse me".  At the playground, N has a really hard time joining in, taking turns, getting to know other kids, because K is always right there.  K even made N go into the women's restroom with she and I, instead of letting him go into the men's (with only 6 stalls, 2 sinks and 1 entrance) with my 3 boys while we waited right outside the door.  What ideas about life is N internalizing, when K seems to think there is a real chance that someone or something so bad is lurking in the tiny, suburban men's room that not even a group of four boys together can safely enter.

 

I don't say anything to K, because I respect her right to parent as she sees fit, and I figure I am leading by example when she sees my kids managing to interact with the world unscathed.  In my head though, I am often lamenting the way she stifles N, and all the opportunities he is missing to practice small bursts of independence and build up life experience without his mom constantly running interference.

 

Wendy

[MBM]

My husband's PhD is in statistics. When it comes to our kids, if risk can be removed easily, that's what we do, but we also try to balance removing risk with opportunities to mature safely while considering our particular circumstances and environment.

 

FWIW, hotels can be unsafe. For example, a new one in our former, safe, small suburb had a lot of prostitution going on. I waited until my kids were a certain size before we let them go back to the room alone. Chances are slim that anything bad would happen but it was easy enough for me or dh to go back with them.

 

We've lived in iffy areas and kept all of our kids on tight leashes. They all managed just fine after adulthood. The oldest is now in his mid-30s and he and his sister have travelled the world. We still inquire a lot about our youngest's plans. He's 20 and is doing fine so far.

[kitten18]

I don't think it's "extreme measures" not to make my kid travel by herself every day on public transportation across an inner city environment filled with predatory men, the way my parents did. In the hotel situation I don't think it's "extreme measures" to say "hold on a few minutes and I'll go with you." The parent may well decide it's all right to let her go, but generally, watching your pre-teen kids is not "extreme."

But the idea that predators are everywhere and just waiting to snatch children is extreme.

[MistyMountain]

Yes I was going to use perceived risk a few times in those other threads as a response to some posts. Neither scenario is risky at all even when people came up with these what if scenarios that are extremely unlikely. When something tragic and unlikely does happen then people blame the parent for not being next to their child every waking moment. We have cases where people got abducted in their own homes or out and about in our community with parents there. You cannot prevent everything but allowing kids increasing freedom does have positive effects on letting them feel confident and independent in the future.

 

I am very protective around water, with car seats and boosters, with internet safeguards and not forcing hugs and teaching about how no one even people you know should touch your private parts and if they do something that makes you uncomfortable tell no matter what they say. I give my kids increasing freedom based on maturity and they really get benefits from it on the road to independence by knowing they can handle things. With people in my neighborhood and some friends I actually am more protective and wait longer to allow things but on here and other internet places I am a lot less protective based on threads like those two recent ones.

 

We do talk about what to do for scenarios that can happen some more likely then others. Examples are no adult needs help from a child and never get in someone's car you do not know, find another mom with children or a police if you get lost, if you see a bear do not run no matter what and more details based on the type of bear, if someone does try to take you make a big ruckus and kick in weak areas and shout things more likely that get people's attention. We also talk about internet safety.

Edited July 3, 2017 by MistyMountain

[Twolittleboys]

I don't think it's "extreme measures" not to make my kid travel by herself every day on public transportation across an inner city environment filled with predatory men, the way my parents did. In the hotel situation I don't think it's "extreme measures" to say "hold on a few minutes and I'll go with you." The parent may well decide it's all right to let her go, but generally, watching your pre-teen kids is not "extreme."

Hm, but for me those two scenarios are completely different. Travelling across an inner city environment on public transportation regularly is probably not ideal if not necessary (I do know plenty of city's where that wouldn't be a problem but I also spent some time on public transportation in LA 20+ years ago and probably wouldn't recommend it for a child). But going back to the hotel room? Don't get me wrong - I may ask my kid to wait for various reasons (because I think it is politer to wait until everyone is done with breakfast, because we don't have enough keys or whatever) but not really because it is too dangerous.

[ktgrok]

I think it's funny (not ha-ha funny) that you bring up lightning because, to me, there's nothing wasteful about learning what to do in a storm, nor does it interfere with life. My kids knew how to react to thunder storms even before our neighbor's house got struck by lightning.  Now my 10 and 6yos know how to read the radar on their own devices, prep themselves to hang out in the safest part of the house, and determine when it's safe to go back outside to play in the mud.  They also know what to do if we're away from home in a storm, and how to react if the car is struck by lightning.  They've lost *nothing* in the process of learning, and live perfectly normal lives.  I don't waste any energy worrying, because I know they can and will take their own reasonable precautions. I don't understand what the downside is.

 

This may vary on where you live. My kids know about lightening because we live in Florida. They don't know about earthquakes or avalanches. Might be different in another part of the world. 

[Tanaqui]

Would you walk down a dark alley by yourself at night? Technically and statistically you would probably be fine to do this. But would you?

 

Sure, why not?

 

I think many parents are concerned with being "cool" and doing the whole free range thing

 

I don't "do the whole free range thing" because I want to be "cool". I allow my kids age-appropriate freedom because that is the best thing for their development. I don't appreciate my choices being demeaned like this.

 

but the fact is that many, many more people these days have addictions to sex and porn. THIS is statistical fact. Their brains and judgment centers are being rewired by these sensations and images. Boundaries are being broken even more.

 

Prove it. Show the stats.

 

And, there is a wide range of sexual flavors out there these days too. A lot is more acceptable sexually in our culture. We are not a far reach away from more and more people struggling with sexual desires involving minors. Seriously.

 

Prove it. Show the stats.

 

Let's use the same logic on home projects. Would you invite an uninsured and unlicensed worker into your private nest/home to do a plumbing or roofing project?

 

I frequently do my own plumbing. I am neither insured nor licensed. I'm also not licensed to teach, and I bet you're not either, but here we are, on a homeschooling forum!

 

Why does this have to factor into parenting at all? Kids can have a lot of other ways of being and showing their independence. Why does a parent want to be free range with this sort of thing when there are a host of other safe alternatives?

 

Because my choices regarding my kids ARE safe.

 

I think it's funny (not ha-ha funny) that you bring up lightning because, to me, there's nothing wasteful about learning what to do in a storm, nor does it interfere with life. My kids knew how to react to thunder storms even before our neighbor's house got struck by lightning.

 

Right, but you take reasonable precautions. You're not refusing to ever let your kids outside even in the yard without you because, after all, they might get struck by lightning.

[Tanaqui]

(I do know plenty of city's where that wouldn't be a problem but I also spent some time on public transportation in LA 20+ years ago and probably wouldn't recommend it for a child)

 

The crime rate is lower now - even in LA.

 

This link just discuses homicide, but the trend holds for other violent crimes as well.

[Tanaqui]

The chance of being abducted by a child killer is blessedly small. The chance of being sexually assaulted or even just terrorized and followed, flashed and grabbed at, propositioned and groomed for trafficking, as happened to me dozens of times as a kid and teenager - almost none of them reported to make it into the official stats - is not small.

 

I'm sorry that happened to you. But you know what? I was growing up in the scary 90s in NYC, and... none of that ever happened to me, nor my sister. And now it's much safer, and none of that has happened to my kids, nor any of their friends. (Those kids don't keep secrets. I'd've heard them complaining about it.) Maybe you're Spiders Georg. I'm not going to restrict my kids on the say-so of an outlier.

 

Edit: Though I definitely understand that your childhood influences your parenting. I would expect you to be more cautious than I am. It's okay for you to do that, but I really get irked when people then try to make it sound like the rest of us are unloving and unworried about safety at all.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Tanaqui

[fralala]

One of my favorite books that has greatly affected how I approach this subject is The Gift of Fear.

 

Rather than trying to protect my children from every possible danger, or even warn them about every possible horrible thing that happens in this world, I try to hold myself back from interfering with their own intuition.

 

It is, for me, a struggle. I am-- internally-- the most fearful, helicoptering parent possible, due certainly to some out-of-my-control, terribly-unlikely-to-recur childhood incidents of my own. But rather than impose my irrational fears on my children-- or try to argue against their feelings-- I just try to scaffold the "gift" that de Becker writes about. I worry that risk-taking, and poor decision making, can partially be abetted by parents who try to take responsibility for things that ultimately need to be up to the child: does he feel safe and secure at the top of the jungle gym/running into the store alone/riding his bike around the neighborhood/taking the bus/traveling abroad? This overrides the child's natural intuition. And it is the last thing any helicopter parent, who loves her child dearly and wants him to be safe even beyond her hovering, wants to do.

 

Now, kids have different (seemingly inborn) levels of trust, anxiety, fearfulness...I don't think we should judge or blame parents for the risks their children are (or aren't) willing to take. When I think of my own kids, I realize that people who met just one of them could assume I'm either a helicopter parent or the most free range parent ever depending on their own biases and which kid they met! But observing our own kids, asking them questions, just talking, and listening, and not forcing them into situations that make them uncomfortable-- or holding them back from things they feel ready for-- these things, to me, are more powerful than lectures or safety lessons.

I am not going to let my kid be a guinea pig in the name of "coolness" or free range. 

 

 

Like it or not, whether we are extreme free-range parents, extreme over-protectors, or something in the middle, all of our kids are guinea pigs in this experiment of parenting.  Nothing is certain, and the conditions are always changing.

[MistyMountain]

I definitely do not let my kids navigate things to be "cool". I do things with scaffolding and as they show the maturity to handle tasks. With social media the opposite is true. The "cool" (not the best term) thing to do is to be protective and it is seen as bad parenting to allow certain freedoms. Parents are often berated for letting kids play in the neighborhood or for giving them little freedoms as described. I even have seen dog piles over bad parenting kids for kids who were escape artists or kids that got lost on a hike. I do feel something is lost when percieved risk and judgement on bad parenting on things that very much is not becomes the norm at least on social media. You have to worry more about other people judging and reporting something benign then the actual risk itself.

Edited July 3, 2017 by MistyMountain

[Tanaqui]

You cannot prevent everything but allowing kids increasing freedom does have positive effects on letting them feel confident and independent in the future.

 

My mother went with a friend's teenaged daughter and another two girls to the Pride parade. (The teenaged daughter asked her mom if she could go, her mom said only if she was chaperoned, so the daughter called my sister, said she wanted to go 'with somebody cool', and asked if my mother was available! It made my family laugh a bit, all of us!)

 

The MTA, in its wisdom, scheduled a boatload of track repairs that weekend. In order to take the train down to the boat - well, they couldn't, not directly. They had to go into Brooklyn, transfer at Atlantic, and then head back up. This is an easy, easy transfer - but the girls freaked out when they heard "This train is going into Brooklyn" and bolted. This was on top of not being able to get to 34th street from 32nd, something else my mother couldn't believe. "You pick a direction, and if the number goes down, you walk the other way!" She is convinced that this is our family friend's fault for not letting her kid travel more. As she put it, I have a legitimate disability here (autism with associated topographical agnosia, not to mention a general "bad sense of direction"), and I was more capable than these girls at the same age, precisely because by the time I was 16 I'd gotten lost several times and returned home each time, so I had worked out a lot of coping strategies and utterly lost my panic reaction. (Heck, my younger kid made that exact same transfer a few months ago, with no adult, because we'd left a bag on the train and I couldn't risk missing the boat, so I told her to hop back on and meet us upstairs when she got back. And she's 11! These girls are 16, going to one of the much vaunted specialized high schools, but... they couldn't manage a simple transfer.)

[MommyLiberty5013]

RE: Free range parenting. It is a trend right now. That is what I mean by "cool." It is a thing that people are doing and exploring. While it has technically been around since Spock in the 1940s, and the books on this parenting style came out at the end of the last decade, it is really now that we are seeing a lot of free range.

 

RE: Children alone. There is the kid - Factor A and the parent(s) - Factor B and there are circumstance/other people/location, which is the X factor. Hotels are probably the worst X factor possible for a few reasons:

 

1. They are known locations of trafficking.

2. They are known locations for sex workers/clients/pimps, etc..

3. The pricier the hotel lulls people into false senses of security even sub-consciously thinking "Well that cannot happen here because everybody paid at least $200/night."

4. The long hallways and stairwells limit escape routes and lack sufficient hiding places for someone trying to flee an abduction.

5. It is one of the only places in society at which public and private spaces collide. The hallway/elevator/stairwell are the public zones and only feet away are peoples' bedrooms and bathrooms, behind auto-locking doors.

6. People in hotels are in rest/sleep or vacation mode and are not as likely to be aware or paying attention to their surroundings as they might be walking on the sidewalk or in a subway platform. They are not accustomed to listening for danger sounds - they may think it is a TV or a child playing.

 

Many crimes are crimes of opportunity. I have already discussed the issues of sex and porn addiction. All of this can be fed easily in hotels. Many people are caught in loops of fantasy. All it takes is for someone to open a door to their bedroom, see a younger person, and act.

 

I am fully aware that any of this could and does happen to adults too. But while a child is in my nest - they are not walking a hotel hallway alone. There are too many good reasons, not to do so.

 

Plus, my cousin works for a DAs office in a large Midwestern metropolitan area - as a head of a child crimes/internet division. If he says it's a bad idea, regardless of how mature my kid is or how I have decided to parent them, then I am going to listen to the LEO in the field, and not a parenting book.

 

 

[MommyLiberty5013]

Like it or not, whether we are extreme free-range parents, extreme over-protectors, or something in the middle, all of our kids are guinea pigs in this experiment of parenting.  Nothing is certain, and the conditions are always changing.

 

 

Of course to all of this! Yes, we are often flying by the seat of our pants and learning as we go. But, hotels are particularily bad places for letting a kid be free.