Allowing dangerous play

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?

I allow more dangerous play than other parents.

Buttt why

Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.

She posts here and literally does nothing. After all, defiance is now protected under ODD as opposed to the true cause: ahole child, wimp parents.

I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.

But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.

For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.

In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.

Wow, OK so that's a whole different problem. What consequences do you have for that kind of defiance?

You know she does nothing. Defiance is now a disorder, not a character flaw that parents can help correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?

I allow more dangerous play than other parents.

Buttt why

Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.

I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.

But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.

For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.

In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.

Wow, OK so that's a whole different problem. What consequences do you have for that kind of defiance?

She doesn't have any. Her kids are brats and she is lazy.

Reread her first post. None of those behaviors are egregious. Most parents are Ok with those things.

Now read her second post.

She lets them do whatever no guidance at all. Which is different from just letting them be Kids.

Nope she has no rules. That is why kids are getting hurt.

It is fine to. teach your kids to think for themselves absolutely that is not what is happening here.

My guess is if her kid wanted to jump off the roof of her house she'd be fine with it.

See this is why I have issues. PP hears what I let them do, thinks I'm a lazy parent who lets them do whatever the heck they want to do and have zero rules. And that I'm at fault for the kids getting hurt, and that I'd be fine with the kids jumping off the roof.

I think what I allow is perfectly reasonable for our kids. But then when other kids come over or when we have a playdate, I start being the helicopter mom because there are parents like above.

Um, PP thinks you're a lazy parent because you said telling your kids no doesn't work well so you don't do it. That is what is lazy.

It's kind of obvious to you that you wouldn't understand, but I'll try anyway. I very much have to choose my battles with my one child. I do set limits, but I am much more judicious about which ones. My child's brain requires a very solid logical reason for all limits.

And there are a lot of things that I absolutely do not allow, some of which has resulted in many heated arguments. But I also recognize that every parent has different levels of risk they are comfortable with, so I'm trying to figure out how to manage that when they are together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?

I allow more dangerous play than other parents.

Buttt why

Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.

I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.

But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.

For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.

In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.

This is a problem of your own creation. Your kids are oppositional and defiant, so you don't tell them not to do things. Ok.

Tell them they can't have friends over if they don't listen. And then enforce that. I'm not against rough play but it sounds like your kids are brats, honestly.

If it makes you feel better to start name-calling my kids, go right on ahead.

You're the one who said your kid was oppositional and defiant. Seriously.

…and that she can’t tell him no because it both doesn’t work and he’ll get mad at the other kids. Her literal posts. She’s a creep and is raising creeps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?

I allow more dangerous play than other parents.

Buttt why

Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.

I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.

But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.

For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.

In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.

Wow, OK so that's a whole different problem. What consequences do you have for that kind of defiance?

She doesn't have any. Her kids are brats and she is lazy.

Reread her first post. None of those behaviors are egregious. Most parents are Ok with those things.

Now read her second post.

She lets them do whatever no guidance at all. Which is different from just letting them be Kids.

Nope she has no rules. That is why kids are getting hurt.

It is fine to. teach your kids to think for themselves absolutely that is not what is happening here.

My guess is if her kid wanted to jump off the roof of her house she'd be fine with it.

See this is why I have issues. PP hears what I let them do, thinks I'm a lazy parent who lets them do whatever the heck they want to do and have zero rules. And that I'm at fault for the kids getting hurt, and that I'd be fine with the kids jumping off the roof.

I think what I allow is perfectly reasonable for our kids. But then when other kids come over or when we have a playdate, I start being the helicopter mom because there are parents like above.

Um, PP thinks you're a lazy parent because you said telling your kids no doesn't work well so you don't do it. That is what is lazy.

It's kind of obvious to you that you wouldn't understand, but I'll try anyway. I very much have to choose my battles with my one child. I do set limits, but I am much more judicious about which ones. My child's brain requires a very solid logical reason for all limits.

And there are a lot of things that I absolutely do not allow, some of which has resulted in many heated arguments. But I also recognize that every parent has different levels of risk they are comfortable with, so I'm trying to figure out how to manage that when they are together.

Brats are created by their genius!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?

I allow more dangerous play than other parents.

Buttt why

Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.

I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.

But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.

For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.

In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.

Wow, OK so that's a whole different problem. What consequences do you have for that kind of defiance?

Honestly, I haven't given consequences for that specific type of defiance. #1, this is a kid that does not respond well to consequences. #2, trying to prevent it is like trying to prevent a dog from sniffing butts. It goes against the very nature of my kid's being. #3, if I punish for this, it would only create negative feelings toward those other kids for my kid.

NP here, I have an outdoorsy family and outdoorsy friends. We are ok with a fair amout of independence. But the flip side of that is when I say Freeze or Come back, I mean immediately. I may have seen a snake (freeze) or there's lightning coming or somebody at the back of the group is hurt. They also know that you look out for your group, including less capable kids. We've been fortunate to have great older kids in the neighborhood as role models.

A kid who won't come back, is not ready for that much independence. They aren't holding up their side of the safety deal. Personally I would not be ok with it even when playing alone but the main thing is to not introduce another kid to the situation until your kid is more ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?

I allow more dangerous play than other parents.

Buttt why

Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.

I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.

But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.

For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.

In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.

This is a problem of your own creation. Your kids are oppositional and defiant, so you don't tell them not to do things. Ok.

Tell them they can't have friends over if they don't listen. And then enforce that. I'm not against rough play but it sounds like your kids are brats, honestly.

If it makes you feel better to start name-calling my kids, go right on ahead.

You’re a loon

[Anonymous]

I have a kid with ADHD and who can be oppositional. I agree it’s hard but it’s important to establish that minimum behavior for involving others is that they stop when you say stop. I agree with the PP who gave the example of seeing a snake- you can have a discussion afterwards and explain your reasoning but they have to trust you that you have a good reason to listen. I grew up HATING having a parent who felt “because I said so” was an adequate explanation for rules, and it took me a while to understand I could demand my kids listen to me while also being clear about our system of beliefs and why I have the rules I have.

“First time listening” is like the whole goal of parent training, which I highly recommend for parents of kids like mine (and yours). Its more than the typical in the moment can consequences but a whole system of establishing that parents and adults need to be listened too. You can’t know ahead of time every situation your kid is going to be in. Sometimes they have to just listen.

FWIW I think there’s no one baseline for safety. My kid with ADHD is in constant motion and climbs everything but they are also extremely strong and fit and can do things safely that their friends can’t. I supervise more than most parents for this reason. It’s fine. I do think if your child can’t listen to stop they need a break from playdates for a while or very controlled like go to an activity play dates only. Good luck

[Anonymous]

My kids have friends like your kids and we have coached them well to handle situations where the friends are doing things they know they shouldn't be doing (riding bikes/scooters/hoverboards without helmets, using pocketknives without adult supervision, setting off fireworks). I also see this as a good learning lesson for my kids in not succumbing to peer pressure, and also learning how to advocate for themselves with their friends (whose parents I trust, but also recognize have different risk thresholds than I.)

So TL;DR: let the other parents figure out how to handle this. They know your kids have different rules. Not really your responsibility unless you're actively hiding what you allow in your home.

[Anonymous]

There's a difference between allowing risky play unsupervised and allowing kids to do risky things if they are doing them carefully. Supervised kids are more careful - even if they are doing risky things. If I'm supervising, I am less of a wet blanket. If I can't supervise, they aren't allowed to do those risky things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Broken arm or leg-risk play? Yeah, maybe. Broken neck-risk play without parents’ permission? No.

One of my kids was hit in the eye with a foam sword during a sleepover so we spent the next 24 hrs in the ER and next 5 years working with a retina specialist. There was a lot of debate among parents in the class and our friend circle about whether a serious eye injury was a reasonable risk. Full spectrum of opinions. Ultimately, many parents decided that particular household didn’t provide enough supervision for rough play and the parent insisting on inclusion of the out of control much younger sibling who poked my kid’s eye intentionally was too risky. She was irate and complained that her children were being shunned. She couldn’t see that others just wanted to protect their own.

This sounds like a made for HBO mini series or something.

It seems like you all fed off each other until this one fluke accident became a nightmare for that family. It really sucks that this happened to your child. No doubt about that. I don't understand why it involved everyone else shunning the whole family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?

I allow more dangerous play than other parents.

Buttt why

Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.

I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.

But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.

For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.

How is it teaching them to be obnoxious when they have no way of knowing what the other kids are not allowed to do?

If the other parent is right there telling their kid "you can't climb trees" and OP's kid is there, then OP's kid does in fact know what the other kid is not allowed to do.

Np. But in this example, why does "knowing the other kid isn't allowed to climb trees" mean "I can't climb trees?"

Because when you invite someone to your house, they are your guest. Indulging in activities your guest cannot participate in is a dick move. How do you not know this?

I'm talking about at the park, where other random kids are having tantrums because their mom doesn't let them climb trees. I'm not talking about play dates. (I'm the person you responded to, not op)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids have friends like your kids and we have coached them well to handle situations where the friends are doing things they know they shouldn't be doing (riding bikes/scooters/hoverboards without helmets, using pocketknives without adult supervision, setting off fireworks). I also see this as a good learning lesson for my kids in not succumbing to peer pressure, and also learning how to advocate for themselves with their friends (whose parents I trust, but also recognize have different risk thresholds than I.)

So TL;DR: let the other parents figure out how to handle this. They know your kids have different rules. Not really your responsibility unless you're actively hiding what you allow in your home.

Eh, I'm a permissive parent from upthread and fireworks is beyond the pale. That would be the last playdate with that kid.

[Anonymous]

I let my kids climb trees and wander around, but it's only safe because they can obey instructions like Freeze and Come back instantaneously. Op, forget about other people's kids, this defiance makes it dangerous for your own kids.

[Anonymous]

I also would say knives, spears, guns, fireworks, etc, are out of bounds. There would be no repeat playdates.