CHILD LEASHES: A Defense

Yes, I hate GLEE. But I wanted to take a few minutes to un-‘leash’ another diatribe, or at least a sort of aimless philosophical exercise, if you’ll grant me the utter nonsequitor.

At Starbucks yesterday evening (the one near my work; where I’m mayor; where I enjoy a level of popularity among the sassy baristas unparalleled in any social arena at any point throughout my life so far. Free coffee is only the beginning—Tricia told me she wanted to “feel me up” yesterday when she gave me my latte) two women were waiting for their Frappacinos when one of them saw something outside that made her cry: “OH GIRL…HELL YES. I NEED ME ONE OF THOSE.”

“What now?” her friend said, looking. Awaiting my own coffee, it was either eavesdropping or reading the track listing for the 300th time on the Deathcab CD that Starbucks is now selling. Haven’t heard it, but great track titles.


I assumed, both because these women were quite fat and because I am an asshole, that she had seen some sort of food product, perhaps a churro. But then I saw what captivated this woman so: outside there was another large woman wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt with two red-headed children attached to…could it be…CHILD LEASHES?? This was seriously something out of the classist third act of MILLON DOLLAR BABY. Utterly splendid.


The Starbucks woman was impressed—could those really be the first kid leashes she has ever seen?—but her other friend, obviously a more dogged defender of personal liberty and individual freedom of locomotion—told her she was crazy, “LEASHES ARE FOR YOUR CAT” she reasoned.


Okay, so she didn’t have the particulars right—I mean a cat leash is just insane—but generally I agree with her. And we all do, right? It just feels wrong, leashes are for pets, tying up children is cruel and neglectful (as far as TYING ANYTHING TO YOUR PERSON can be considered ‘neglectful’). It’s just plain old wrong.


But sitting on the subway home, I kept musing on this incident and my visceral reaction to it. What’s so wrong about a parent choosing to tether their child, so they don’t run off and get hit by a car, or kidnapped by Tricia the barista, or eat that weird feathery thing lodged in the crack of the sidewalk. I’m not talking about like elaborate and painful harnesses and cat-o-nail-tails cracking their flanks if they get distracted by the ice cream man and break stride, I’m just saying – is it really so different than strapping a child into a car or bike seat? Or going with them on a two-man float on a waterslide?

This is one of the many examples in my life where my initial, egalitarian, liberal, “enlightened” reaction sort of chaffed against a more slowly-determined and reasoned analysis. I’m not sure I think all kids should be manacled to their mothers—some are better off getting as far away from mom as they can, hell this particular one was wearing a MICKY MOUSE SHIRT. It’s when leashes replace responsible parenting that I think we have a larger problem, but I’m not sure why we can’t have both.

In a vacuum, kids should be able to roam free and sprinkle their joy and puerile wonderment on all things they touch. In reality, they break shit. What it comes down to is if we live in a world where parents take personal and financial responsibility for their child’s safety and liability for the damage they cause, throwing a rope around their neck and commanding—patiently yet firm—WHOOOO DOGGY may not be the worst thing in the world.

And he never babysat again.